Abortion and Safe Haven Laws

Abstract

Notwithstanding the assertions of the State of Mississippi, one amicus, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion laws and safe haven laws are oil and vinegar. Not only do they not mix, but safe haven laws in some ways support the continuing validity of the balance struck in Roe v. Wade on abortion. Both abortion and safe haven laws advance the interests of women who choose not to parent children within their existing family structures. But safe haven laws, though (perhaps) unlike the Mississippi abortion law, very clearly run contrary to settled U.S. Supreme precedents. Thus they cannot be urged in support of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act.

Safe haven laws are problematic, under Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), as they fail to protect the childcare interests of expecting legal parents, like unwed biological fathers of children born of consensual sex to unwed mothers and like those with contractual interests in children born to gestational surrogates. Safe haven laws are also problematic, under Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), on required processes for terminating parental rights, as they fail to protect the childcare interests of actual legal parents, like presumed spousal parents, like voluntary acknowledgment parents and like those with prebirth court orders on gestational surrogacy parentage that take effect at birth.

Note:
Funding Information: None to declare.

Declaration of Interests: None to declare.

Keywords: Abortion, Safe Haven Laws, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs, Lehr, Santasky, Missippii Abortion Law, Gestational Age Act, Amy Coney Barrett