Abstract
In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade, medical professionals were left confused, and the denial of prescription medication burdened women with chronic illnesses. Medical professionals either refused to prescribe or refill the medication to women with chronic illnesses or changed prescriptions for women who had used methotrexate and misoprostol for the management of their chronic illnesses. The Dobbs Court failed to take into account the reliance interest that women with chronic illnesses possess to access their medication for their treatment plans. Additionally, the Court failed to consider medical professionals in its decision. This Note argues that the confusion created in the wake of Dobbs has burdened women with chronic illnesses disproportionately to their male counterparts. This Note provides specific examples of cases where this denial of prescription medication occurred. It also examines the statutes and case law that may create a device to obtain legal relief and argues that the disproportionate effect on women with chronic illnesses is unlawful. The Note further considers the policy considerations which call for physician shielding laws that will reduce confusion and decrease this disproportionate effect on women with chronic illnesses. Finally, this Note proposes a model “shield” law to protect medical professionals from any liability—criminal or civil—when lawfully providing women with chronic illnesses their prescriptions. The solution aims to decrease the disproportionate impact on women with chronic illnesses by decreasing physician and pharmacist fear around providing access to the medication at issue.
Recommended Citation
Mallory Maag,
Access Denied: An Immediate Discriminatory Impact on Women With Chronic Illness After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,
48
S. Ill. U. L.J.
329
(2023).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol48/iss2/7