•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, twelve states enacted total abortion bans while simultaneously maintaining among the weakest gun safety laws in the nation. This Note explores the policy contradiction inherent in this approach: states invoking fetal life protection experience gun death rates substantially exceeding national averages, with firearms becoming the leading cause of death for children in these jurisdictions. The Note reveals how these states employ divergent strategies across two policy domains. Abortion restrictions receive vigorous enforcement through criminal statutes and private liability mechanisms, whereas gun regulations face active dismantling through constitutional carry provisions and preemption laws. This enforcement asymmetry extends to how courts evaluate evidence: contested scientific claims support abortion restrictions, while comprehensive public health data opposing lax gun laws receives judicial skepticism. The legal frameworks from Dobbs and Bruen facilitate this inconsistency by applying historical analysis selectively and treating empirical evidence disparately. The consequences fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations. States with strict abortion laws report elevated maternal mortality rates alongside the nation’s highest firearm-related death tolls, compounding inequities in already underserved communities. The Note argues that this policy approach reflects ideological prioritization rather than coherent principle—states deploy public safety rationales when restricting reproductive rights while rejecting identical justifications for firearm regulation. Resolving this contradiction requires either genuine commitment to protecting life across all policy domains or acknowledgment that these restrictions serve purposes beyond public health protection.

Download

Share

COinS