Condemning the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and committing to advancing reproductive justice and judicial reform.

Bill Number: H.Res. 938
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-12-09: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Last Updated: 2025-12-11T14:26:20Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This resolution (H. Res. 938) condemns the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). These earlier cases had recognized a constitutional right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The resolution expresses commitment to promoting reproductive justice—defined here as access to abortion as a fundamental aspect of health care and personal liberty—and to reforming the judiciary to restore public trust in the Supreme Court.

Key Provisions

The resolution includes extensive "Whereas" clauses citing legal history, court opinions, and societal impacts, followed by a "Resolved" section with five main commitments by the House of Representatives:

Condemnation of the Dobbs decision: Explicitly denounces the Supreme Court's ruling as undermining women's liberty and equality, and as politically motivated.
Judicial reform: Pledges to use Congress's powers under Article III of the Constitution (which establishes the judicial branch) to enact reforms, aiming to rebuild confidence in the Supreme Court and prevent perceptions of it as a partisan body.
Advancing reproductive justice through federal law: Commits to passing laws that protect abortion access as essential health care and a core human liberty.
Protection of vulnerable communities: Focuses on safeguarding groups disproportionately affected by abortion restrictions, including women of color, undocumented women, low-income women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, gender-nonconforming people, and those with disabilities.
Urging executive action: Calls on the President and federal agencies to use their authorities for a comprehensive government-wide effort to promote reproductive justice.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

As a house resolution, this is a non-binding expression of opinion and does not amend or create new laws. It has no direct legal effect but signals potential future legislative priorities, such as bills to codify abortion rights or restructure the judiciary (e.g., expanding the Supreme Court). It references but does not alter the Dobbs ruling, which returned abortion regulation to states, eliminating federal constitutional protections from Roe and Casey.

Potential Impacts

On citizens: Could encourage policy debates and mobilize support for abortion access, particularly benefiting the estimated 64 million women of reproductive age in the U.S., with heightened effects on marginalized groups facing barriers like poverty, discrimination, or limited travel. It highlights risks such as increased health disparities, mental health issues from unsafe abortions, and confusion in medical care (e.g., delays in miscarriage treatment due to legal fears).
On government agencies: Prompts the executive branch (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services) to prioritize reproductive health in policies, potentially affecting funding for clinics or telemedicine rules. Congress may pursue related bills, influencing committees like Judiciary and Energy and Commerce.
On international relations: Minimal direct impact, though it underscores U.S. domestic divides on human rights, which could affect global perceptions of U.S. leadership on women's rights issues, as referenced by the World Health Organization's concerns about abortion stigma.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Women and reproductive-age individuals: Especially those in states with abortion bans (potentially 28 states), including low-income, minority, undocumented, transgender, and gender-nonbinary people who face higher barriers to care.
Healthcare providers: Obstetricians, gynecologists, and clinics (e.g., Planned Parenthood) dealing with legal uncertainties, such as restrictions on medication abortions (used in 54% of cases in 2020) or telemedicine.
Marginalized communities: LGBTQIA+ individuals, people with disabilities, and victims of rape/incest, who may lose access without exceptions.
Judiciary and lawmakers: The Supreme Court (public confidence at 25% per Gallup in 2022), Congress (via reform efforts), and the executive branch.
Broader society: Includes families, employers, and citizens concerned with equality, as the resolution argues Dobbs threatens related rights like contraception and same-sex marriage.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal implications: Challenges the Dobbs framework, which limits substantive due process rights (protections of personal freedoms not explicitly listed in the Constitution) to those "deeply rooted in history and tradition." It warns of risks to precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception), Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex intimacy), and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), potentially inviting further court challenges.
Constitutional implications: Invokes Article III to justify congressional oversight of the judiciary, raising questions about reforms like court-packing or term limits, which could test separation of powers. It critiques Dobbs for applying a narrow, historical view of liberty, contrasting with evolving interpretations that include modern equality principles.
Political implications: Highlights partisan tensions, with the resolution (introduced by Rep. Espaillat on December 9, 2025, in the 119th Congress) referred to key committees for review. It could fuel debates on court legitimacy and reproductive rights, influencing elections and state laws, while dissenting justices' views (e.g., Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) are cited to argue the decision erodes public trust in the rule of law.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]

Recent Actions

2025-12-09: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-12-09: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-12-09: Submitted in House
2025-12-09: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

Condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and committing to advancing reproductive justice and judicial reform. — issued 2025-12-09 — PDF (10 pages)