Amicus Curiae Brief — Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.
Supreme Court briefJul 29, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 19-1392
In the Supreme Court of the United States
__________
THOMAS E. DOBBS, ET AL., Petitioners
v.
JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL.
__________
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
__________
BRIEF FOR WOMEN LEGISLATORS
AND THE SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST
AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
__________
H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI
Counsel of Record
HANNAH C. SMITH
SCHAERR|JAFFE LLP
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 787-1060
cbartolomucci@schaerr-jaffe.com
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective
abortions are unconstitutional.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI ...... 1
STATEMENT .............................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 4
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 6
I.
Studies Show That Women Have Significant
Impact On Legislation Well Before Reaching
Gender Parity. ....................................................... 6
II. Women Have Significantly Higher
Representation Today Than When Roe Was
Decided. ............................................................... 11
A. Very few women served in state legislatures
and Congress in the 1970s. ............................ 11
B. Record numbers of women are serving in state
legislatures and Congress today. ................... 13
III. These Changes Warrant Greater Deference To
Legislative Judgments About Abortion-Related
Matters. ............................................................... 17
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 22
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
List of Amici Legislators ...................................... 1a
APPENDIX B
Percentage of Women in State Legislatures by
Year....................................................................... 5a
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
June Medical Services v. Russo,
140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) ............................................ 18
Lochner v. New York,
198 U.S. 45 (1905) .................................................. 17
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) ........................................ passim
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) ........................................ passim
State v. Hunter,
300 P.2d 455 (Or. 1956) ........................................... 1
Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs.,
492 U.S. 490 (1989) ................................................ 21
Statutes and Bills
Act 620 (H.B. 388),
La. Leg., Reg. Sess. (2014) ..................................... 18
Gestational Age Act,
H.B. 1510, Miss. Leg., Reg. Sess. (2018) ............... 19
Repeal Act,
H.B. 2491, Va. Gen. Assemb. (2019) ....................... 2
Texas Heartbeat Act,
Tex. S.B. 8, 87th Leg., R.S. (2021)........................... 2
Other Authorities
Br. for Appellant, Reed v. Reed,
404 U.S. 71 (1971) (No. 70-430) ............................... 1
iv
Debra L. Dodson & Susan J. Carroll,
Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State
Legislatures (1991) ................................................... 6
Dena Levy, Charles Tien, & Rachelle Aved,
Do Differences Matter? Women Members of
Congress and the Hyde Amendment, 23 Women &
Pol. 105 (2001) ...................................................... 8, 9
Drude Dahlerup,
From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in
Scandinavian Politics, 2 Scandinavian Pol. Stud.
275 (1988) ........................................................... 9, 10
Eagle Forum,
About Us, The Future of Eagle Forum (Jan. 4,
2021) ....................................................................... 20
Elizabeth M. Cox,
Women, State, and Territorial Legislators, 1895–
1995 (1996) ....................................................... 12, 14
Gerald F. Seib,
The Year of the Woman Really, Finally Did Arrive
in 2020, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 16, 2020,
10:20 AM) ............................................................... 15
Jason A. MacDonald & Erin E. O’Brien,
Quasi-Experimental Design, Constituency, and
Advancing Women’s Interests: Reexamining the
Influence of Gender on Substantive Representation,
64 Pol. Res. Q. 472 (2011) ...................................... 10
Kathleen A. Bratton,
Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and
Success of Token Women in State Legislatures, 1
Pol. & Gender 97 (2005)................................... 6, 7, 8
v
Kelly Dittmar & Chelsea Hill,
A Record Number of Women will Serve in State
Legislatures in 2021, Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr.
for Am. Women and Pol. (Dec. 4, 2020, updated
Feb. 17, 2021) ......................................................... 11
Kobee Vance,
Mississippi prepares to send first brief to Supreme
Court for abortion rights case, MPBonline.org
(June 30, 2021) ......................................................... 4
La. H.R., 2014 Reg. Sess.,
Vote on H.B. 388 Am. by S. to be Concurred in S.
Amends. (May 21, 2014) ........................................ 19
La. S., 2014 Reg. Sess.,
H.B. 388 3rd Reading & Final Passage (May 14,
2014) ....................................................................... 19
League of Women Voters,
About Us, 100 Years of LWV .................................. 20
Miss. H.R., 2018 Reg. Sess., Concurred in S. Amend.
of H.B. 1510, Gestational Age Act.......................... 19
Miss. S., 2018 Reg. Sess.,
Vote & Passage as Amended of H.B. 1510,
Gestational Age Act ................................................ 19
Moms Demand Action,
About, Our Story .................................................... 20
Nat’l Conf. of St. Legislators,
Women in State Legislators for 2021 (Feb. 12,
2021) ....................................................................... 14
Nat’l Conf. of St. Legislators,
First Women to Serve in State and Territorial
Legislatures (Mar. 6, 2019) .................................... 12
vi
Network of Enlightened Women,
About....................................................................... 20
Press Release, Gov. Jim Justice,
Gov. Justice signs Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act (Mar. 2, 2020) ................................. 18
Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and
Pol.,
Gender Differences in Voter Turnout............... 19, 20
Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and
Pol.,
History of Women in the U.S. Congress................. 11
Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and
Pol.,
Women in State Legislatures 2021 ........................ 13
Sarah Childs & Mona Lena Krook,
Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A
Contingent Yes, 2 Pol. & Gender 522 (2006) ......... 10
Susan B. Anthony List,
Marjorie Dannenfelser: President .......................... 20
W.V. H.D., 84th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.,
Vote & Passage-S. Amend. H.B. 4007, Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Prot. Act (Feb. 18, 2020) ........ 19
W.V. S., 84th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.,
Vote & Passage of H.B. 4007, Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Prot. Act (Feb. 19, 2020) ....................... 19
Wendy S. Strimling,
Elected Women Organize: Statewide Associations
(1986) ...................................................................... 14
vii
Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future
(Sue Thomas & Clyde Wilcox eds.,
3d ed.2014) ............................................. 8, 10, 11, 15
Appendix B Sources
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Alabama ................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Alaska ...................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Arizona ..................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Arkansas .................................. 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – California ................................. 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Colorado ................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Connecticut .............................. 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Delaware .................................. 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Florida ..................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Georgia ..................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Hawaii ..................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Idaho ........................................ 9a
viii
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Illinois ...................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Indiana .................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Iowa.......................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Kansas...................................... 9a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Kentucky ................................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Louisiana ............................... 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Maine ..................................... 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Maryland ............................... 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Massachusetts ........................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Michigan ................................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Minnesota .............................. 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Mississippi ............................. 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Missouri ................................. 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Montana ................................. 10a
ix
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Nebraska ................................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Nevada ................................... 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – New Hampshire ..................... 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – New Jersey ............................. 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – New Mexico ............................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – New York................................ 10a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – North Carolina ...................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – North Dakota ......................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Ohio ........................................ 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Oklahoma .............................. 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Oregon .................................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Pennsylvania ......................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Rhode Island .......................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – South Carolina ...................... 11a
x
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – South Dakota ......................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Tennessee ............................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Texas ...................................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Utah ....................................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Vermont.................................. 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Virginia .................................. 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Washington ............................ 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – West Virginia ......................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Wisconsin ............................... 11a
Center for American Women and Politics,
State Fact Sheet – Wyoming ................................ 12a
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI 1
In 1970, then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg
emphasized how, despite women having the franchise
for 50 years, “[e]lected or appointed office” remained,
“with sparse exceptions, a male preserve.” Br. for
Appellant at 59 n.56, Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
(No. 70-430). She then noted the “levity with which
even the judiciary” treated women’s lack of
representation, even citing a decision bemoaning the
“ever-increasing feminine encroachment upon” the
“manly arts and privileges” of drafting and voting on
legislation. Ibid. (quoting State v. Hunter, 300 P.2d
455, 457-458 (Or. 1956)). And Ginsburg’s summary
was painfully accurate—the “legacy of [women’s]
disenfranchisement” remained apparent long after it
ended. Ibid. Indeed, when this Court decided Roe v.
Wade only three years later, women made up only 5.9
percent of legislatures nationwide. 410 U.S. 113
(1973).
Fifty years later—and now a century after
ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment—women
are serving as appointed or elected officials more than
ever before. More than 30 percent of the nation’s state
legislators are women, as are nearly 27 percent of the
Members of Congress, including many in leadership
positions. Women are also well represented in the
other branches, as illustrated by the three women
All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No
counsel for a party authored it in whole or in part, nor did any
person or entity, other than Amici and their counsel, make a
monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. No
Amicus is publicly traded or has any parent corporations. No
publicly traded corporation owns 10% or more of any amicus.
1
2
serving on this Court, and Kamala Harris’s service as
our first woman Vice President.
As women’s presence in government has increased,
so too has their ability to shape legislation. This is true
both with issues unique to women and for issues, like
abortion, that concern everyone. Indeed, abortion is
one issue on which the influence of women is profound.
Women today are regular sponsors and supporters of
bills both regulating abortion, see, Texas Heartbeat
Act, Tex. S.B. 8, 87th Leg., R.S. (2021) (introduced by
Texas State Rep. Shelby Slawson), and deregulating
it, see Repeal Act, H.B. 2491, Va. Gen. Assemb. (2019)
(introduced by Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran and
ultimately tabled). The Gestational Age Act at issue
here is a prime example—women legislators drafted
and sponsored the bill, and women legislators (voting
along party lines) helped ensure its ultimate passage.
This case thus comes before this Court at a unique
time. Women have never been better represented in
state legislatures than they are now, and their
representation will likely only increase with time.
Amicus The Susan B. Anthony List exists, in part, to
help further this trend and to expand the many gains
women have seen in state legislatures over the last 50
years. The List is joined by 79 women (listed in
Appendix A) serving in 45 state legislatures, and who
are just a fraction of the hundreds of pro-life women
legislators across the country.
Amici offer the straightforward point that, because
women can now advance their own policy preferences
in legislatures throughout the Nation, the Court can
and should give greater deference to state legislators’
judgments about how to regulate abortion within their
3
states’ borders—certainly greater deference than the
majority displayed in Roe v. Wade and Planned
Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
STATEMENT
In 2018, Mississippi Representative Becky Currie
introduced the Gestational Age Act. The bill, as
eventually enacted, forbids abortions performed after
15 weeks’ gestation. It included findings about fetal
development and how the risk of complications from
abortions increases as a pregnancy advances.
The act was immediately challenged in federal
court. The district court limited discovery to the issue
of “whether the 15-week mark is before or after
viability.” Pet. App. 60a. Despite this, the State
attempted to introduce testimony from Dr. Maureen
Condic, an expert in neurobiology, anatomy, and
embryology, about whether fetuses, before 15 weeks,
were capable of feeling pain. She testified they likely
were. Id. at 75a-79a. The district court ruled that
testimony irrelevant to the question of viability, and
therefore inadmissible. Id. at 56a-57a.
Refusing to even consider the fact that fetuses at
15 weeks’ gestation might feel pain, the district court
held the act unconstitutional, claiming that
Mississippi was doing nothing more than following its
“history of disregarding the constitutional rights of its
citizens.” Id. at 50a n.50. The Fifth Circuit affirmed,
finding that this Court’s precedents do not allow bans
on pre-viability abortions. Id. at 13a. After this Court
agreed to hear the case, Representative Currie said
4
that this case implicated the Mississippi legislatures’
“right to decide what’s best” for Mississippi. 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. Studies show that women are effective at
securing change even when they constitute only a
small percentage (even 15 percent or less) of a
legislative body. Consistent with that finding, and
although women have not yet achieved parity in most
governmental bodies, the significant gains they have
seen in the last 50 years have corresponded with an
increase in legislation introduced by women.
Moreover, even with highly contentious issues such as
abortion that affect everyone, the increased presence
of women in legislatures nationwide has improved the
way those issues are debated by legislatures around
the country.
II. Although there is still significant work to be
done to achieve gender parity in state governments,
things are better now than ever before. At the 19th
Amendment’s ratification, only 1.9% of state
legislators were women. By the time this Court
decided Roe v. Wade, only 5.9% of state legislators
were women. In short, women legislators at the time
were, as Justice Ginsburg made abundantly clear,
“sparse exceptions” to a pervasively male system.
In the early 1970s, things changed. Various efforts
to ensure equal rights for women were advanced,
which helped increase the speed with which women
Kobee Vance, Mississippi prepares to send first brief to
Supreme Court for abortion rights case, MPBonline.org (June 30,
2021), https://tinyurl.com/DobbsArticle.
2
5
were elected to office. These years of debate led to a
marked increase in support for women’s rights. As
support for women increased throughout society,
women began to win elective offices more regularly. So
much so that today, more than 30 percent of the
nation’s state legislators are women.
III. Because of the substantial changes that even a
minority of women bring to a legislative body, there is
no longer a need—if there ever was—for this Court to
assume that women cannot adequately protect their
own interests through state political processes. Even
in those states where women are least represented,
women play a significant role in the creation and
passage of bills related to abortion. Women’s influence
and political involvement, moreover, is apparent in all
aspects of legislation, from electing like-minded
candidates to non-profit advocacy.
Because of women’s increased role in the
legislative process, this Court can safely defer to the
judgments of state legislators on abortion and other
issues disproportionately affecting women, to the
same extent that it would defer to legislative
judgments on other health and safety issues.
6
ARGUMENT
I. Studies Show That Women Have Significant
Impact On Legislation Well Before Reaching
Gender Parity.
In a 1991 survey, a majority of legislators, women
and men alike, expressed the belief that an “increased
presence of women in public office” made a “difference
in public policy.” 3 That belief was shared “[r]egardless
of party affiliation, region, race, length of service, age,
ideology, feminist identification, professionalism of
the legislature, the proportion of women serving in the
chamber or whether they were in the upper or the
lower house.” 4
That survey, taken at a time when women made up
a much smaller percentage of legislators than they do
now, see Part II.B., reflects a simple truth: Women
legislators are effective at accomplishing change. And
since then, a wealth of research has buttressed what
was once only a belief: “[E]ven when they make up a
very small minority” of a legislative body, women play
an outsized role in everything from that body’s
policymaking to its collegiality. 5
1. A 2005 study by Professor Kathleen Bratton, for
example, found that, “even in extremely skewed
legislatures” where women make up “less than 15% of
3 Debra L. Dodson & Susan J. Carroll, Reshaping the Agenda:
Women in State Legislatures 11 (1991).
4 Ibid.
5 Kathleen A. Bratton, Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The
Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures, 1
Pol. & Gender 97, 121 (2005).
7
the membership”—a group that today includes only
one state—women are “more active than men in
sponsoring legislation that focuses on women’s
interests,” 6 which the study defined as “bills that
directly address and seek to improve women’s
economic, political, and social status.” 7 That is
unsurprising. But the same study found that women
are “generally as successful as men in passing
legislation” and, “in very homogeneous settings,”
sometimes more successful than their male
counterparts. 8
The increased focus on women’s issues that has
accompanied greater female representation has had
practical effects on the law: “As the number of women
in each legislature increased, the number of women’s
interest bills passed generally increased.” 9 And the
“overall trend in passage” was due to the “activity of
both men and women.” 10 In California and Maryland,
for example, an increased number of women led to an
increase in the number of women’s interest bills
introduced by men. 11 A relatively modest “critical
mass” of women serving in a legislature thus brings
6 Id. at 97.
7 Id. at 107.
8 Id. at 97 (emphasis added).
9 Id. at 120 (emphasis added).
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
8
about real change even before women reach anything
close to gender parity. 12
2. The influence of women legislators goes beyond
just passing legislation. One study found that “the way
female legislators talk about abortion has influenced
the substance and style of their male colleagues’ floor
speeches.” 13 That study “analyzed the debate on the
Hyde Amendment,” which banned the use of federal
funding in most instances, for each of the eight times
over 24 years “that it was debated on the House
floor.” 14 The study then coded each sentence based on
whether it addressed concern for the woman’s health,
concern for the fetus, the appropriateness of publicly
funding abortions, an objection to abortion as a
method of birth control, a constitutional right to
privacy, equal access to abortion, the costs of raising
children, and whether Congress could legislate about
abortion. From there, each sentence was further coded
as either “pro-life or pro-choice based on the member’s
stated position.” 15
12 Id. at 97 (concluding that “a ‘critical mass’ is not necessary
for substantive representation on the part of individual female
state legislators, but that increased diversity may indeed bring
about changes in policy outputs that reflect the interests of
women”).
13 Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future 164
(Sue Thomas & Clyde Wilcox eds., 3d ed. 2014) (citing Dena Levy,
Charles Tien, and Rachelle Aved, Do Differences Matter? Women
Members of Congress and the Hyde Amendment, 23 Women &
Pol. 105 (2001)).
14 Levy, supra note 13, at 111.
15 Ibid.
9
The study found that women legislators had a
marked effect on the way issues are debated. As the
number of women in Congress increased, their male
colleagues spoke differently and raised different
arguments than they did before. This was true even
with those Members who vocally supported the Hyde
amendment. 16 Whereas in the 1970s, only 21.4
percent of such men mentioned women’s health, by the
1990s, 60.9 percent did. Similar changes were seen
among men opposing the Hyde Amendment. 17 This
study, like the Bratton study, highlights how a
relatively modest percentage of women in a legislative
body affects the quality of debate by male and female
legislators alike.
3. Though not all theories suggest—as did the
Bratton study—that women serving in legislatures
can effectively influence policy even with a relatively
small representation, many other studies suggest
that, at a certain point, “long before they reach the 50
(or maybe 60) percent of the seats,” a minority will
reach “critical mass” and effect a “fundamental
change.” 18 Indeed, critical-mass theory has been used
to explain “why the entrance of women into politics”
did not make more of a difference at the start than the
presence of women—though still a minority—does
now. The theory suggests that a “qualitative shift”
occurs when women “exceed a proportion of about 30
16 Id. at 120.
17 Id. at 121.
18 Drude Dahlerup, From a Small to a Large Minority: Women
in Scandinavian Politics, 2 Scandinavian Pol. Stud. 275, 275
(1988).
10
percent,” 19 which they now have in most states and
are fast approaching in several others. See Appendix
B.
Though the evidence supporting that theory is
“somewhat mixed,” 20 it has served a practical purpose:
Many “political women” believe “critical mass” theory
and “spend considerable time and effort recruiting and
training women candidates, fundraising to increase
their chances of success, and mentoring women who
win office.” 21 As a result, the theory has “proven
extremely useful in making concrete gains in the ‘real
world.’” 22
That is true not only in state legislatures, but in
Congress as well. Even though women today make up
less than 30 percent of Congress, a 2011 study found
that, even at that level, Congress had become
significantly “more likely to place women’s interests
on the agenda.” 23
In sum, long before women elected to state
legislatures reach gender parity, they make a
“distinctive impact on public policy and political
19 Id. at 276.
20 Women and Elective Office, supra note 13, at 17.
21 Ibid.
22 Sarah Childs & Mona Lena Krook, Should Feminists Give
Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes, 2 Pol. & Gender 522, 528529 (2006).
Jason A. MacDonald & Erin E. O’Brien, QuasiExperimental Design, Constituency, and Advancing Women’s
Interests: Reexamining the Influence of Gender on Substantive
Representation, 64 Pol. Res. Q. 472, 482 (2011).
23
11
representation.” 24 Though they are not monolithic in
their views, and have a range of opinions on how
issues should be addressed, see Part III, women
legislators today strongly influence everything from
“agenda creation and definition through policy
modification to policy outcomes.” 25
II. Women Have Significantly Higher Representation Today Than When Roe Was Decided.
Since Roe v. Wade, moreover, and even since Casey,
there has been a marked increase in the number of
women elected to state legislatures. Indeed, in
virtually every state legislature, women are better
represented than ever before, and their representation
continues to increase in most states. 26
A. Very few women served in state
legislatures and Congress in the 1970s.
When this court decided Roe v. Wade, only 15
women were serving in Congress. 27 And things were
no better in the states: Of the 7,563 state legislators
24 Women and Elective Office, supra note 13, at 14-15.
25 Ibid.
26 Following the 2020 election, for example, 29 states saw an
“increase in women state representatives,” and 20 states saw an
“increase in women state senators.” Kelly Dittmar & Chelsea
Hill, A Record Number of Women will Serve in State Legislatures
in 2021, Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and Pol.
(Dec.
4,
2020,
updated
Feb.
17,
2021),
https://tinyurl.com/WomenLeg.
27 Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and Pol.
(CAWP), History of Women in the
https://tinyurl.com/RutgersCongresswomen.
U.S.
Congress,
12
at the time Roe was decided, only 444, or 5.9 percent,
were women. 28
Things were even starker in individual states—
and even individual chambers. Four states (Arkansas,
Florida, Hawaii, and New Jersey), for example, did not
elect any women to the state senate until the decade
before this Court decided Roe. Three states
(California, Missouri, and Wisconsin) elected their
first women state senators in the 1970s. And two
states (Alabama and Virginia) elected their first
women to the state senate in 1983 and 1980,
respectively. 29
Even those states that had elected women before
the 1960s did not elect them in substantial numbers
until much later. Illinois, for example, elected its first
women to the Illinois House in 1923 and the Illinois
Senate in 1925. But it was not until the 1970s that
women in Illinois reached even five percent of the
legislature.
Other states saw similar delays in representation.
In 1975, only 4.4 percent of the Texas legislature, the
enactor of the criminal prohibition this Court
invalidated in Roe, were women. And Alabama—
which, as mentioned above, did not elect its first
woman state senator until 1983—had periods
Elizabeth M. Cox, Women, State, and Territorial
Legislators, 1895–1995, at 328 (1996).
28
29 Nat’l Conf. of St. Legislators, First Women to Serve in State
and
Territorial
Legislatures
(Mar.
6,
2019),
https://tinyurl.com/FirstWomenLegislators.
13
spanning decades where no women were serving in the
state house even after the first woman was elected in
1923.
Illinois, Texas, and Alabama were far from
outliers. As shown in Appendix B, in 1975, in the
immediate aftermath of Roe, women represented less
than 10 percent of state legislators in 36 states. In 14
of those states, women accounted for less than five
percent of the legislature. That year, only New
Hampshire had a legislature in which women were
more than 20 percent of the body.
In short, the first 50 years following the passage of
the Nineteenth Amendment saw little change in the
numbers of women serving in state legislative bodies.
And that was still true when this Court decided Roe.
B. Record numbers of women are serving in
state legislatures and Congress today.
Today, by contrast, and women are serving in state
legislatures and Congress at higher rates than ever
before. Indeed, “[s]ince 1971, the number of women
serving in state legislatures has more than
quintupled.” 30 Moreover, many of those gains
happened in just the last 15 years, which suggests that
female representation in state legislatures is destined
to continue growing for the foreseeable future.
1. Beginning in the 1970s, debates over the status
of women “propelled” women into the “state legislative
political arena.” 31 As those debates occurred in
30 Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and Pol.,
Women in State Legislatures 2021, https://tinyurl.com/Legi2021.
31 Cox, supra note 28, at 25-26.
14
“legislatures of every state,” support for expanding
women’s roles increased in kind. 32 In the early 1970s,
for example, only 40 percent of women and 44 percent
of men responded favorably to polls asking about the
efforts to “strengthen and change women’s status.” 33
But by 1985, those numbers had increased
significantly: When asked the same question, 73
percent of women and 69 percent of men said they
favored those efforts. 34
With the increased support came increased
representation, and between 1975 and 1985 “women
in elected office more than doubled their numbers.” 35
But even by 1993, when in Casey this Court reaffirmed
the “validity of Roe’s central holding,” 505 U.S. at 860,
women constituted only 20.6% of state legislators
nationwide. 36
2. The number of women elected to state legislative
bodies has increased substantially in the years since
Casey. Indeed, for the first time, women now make up
more than 30 percent of state legislators overall. 37 And
the historically high number of women serving today
Leslie W. Gladstone, The Long Road to Equality: What
Women Won from the ERA Ratification Effort, Libr. of Cong.
(2001), https://tinyurl.com/RdtoEquality.
32
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Wendy S. Strimling, Elected Women Organize: Statewide
Associations 1 (1986).
36 Cox, supra note 28, at 328.
37 Nat’l Conf. of St. Legislators, Women in State Legislators
for 2021 (Feb. 12, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/ElectedWomen2021.
15
reflects a message that is “increasingly clear: If women
run, they win.” 38
In the last 15 years alone, women in all but four
states have seen an increase in representation. As a
result, in every state, women now make up at least 10
percent of the legislatures. And in every state but
West Virginia, women are more than 15 percent.
The findings of the Bratton study discussed above
suggest that, at these numbers, women are already
having a significant impact on the legislative bodies in
every state where they serve. But even if one believes
a higher threshold of 30 percent is more appropriate,
Appendix B shows that, in most states, women have
now reached 30 percent representation. Still others
(such as Indiana, Kansas, and Missouri) are
approaching that point, and likely to reach it in the
next few years. As one prominent commentator has
noted, “as candidates,” women “were—and now are—
in the driver’s seat as never before.” 39
3. These gains are most stark when compared to
the number of women serving in the aftermath of Roe.
Alabama, ranked 50th in women’s representation in
1975, has roughly 22 times the number of women
serving in its legislature today as it did then. Other
states have seen similar advances:
38 Women and Elective Office, supra note 13, at 6.
39 Gerald F. Seib, The Year of the Woman Really, Finally Did
Arrive in 2020, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 16, 2020, 10:20
AM), https://tinyurl.com/SeibArticle.
16
•
Arkansas has 10.8 times the number of women
serving now compared to the number serving in
1975;
•
Louisiana has 13.4 times the number of women;
•
Nebraska has 13.3 times the number of women;
•
Pennsylvania has 8.2 times the number of women;
and
•
Texas has six times the number of women.
And the list goes on. As shown in Appendix B, in every
state in the nation, women are significantly better
represented today than they were in Roe’s aftermath.
And in all but two states (West Virginia and
Wyoming), the number of women serving has
continued to grow since Casey. Since those decisions,
a state legislature boasting a substantial percentage
of women has become the rule rather than the
exception.
17
III. These Changes Warrant Greater Deference
To Legislative Judgments About AbortionRelated Matters.
The vast statistical differences between women
serving in state legislators in the 1970s and now show
how far the Nation has come in recognizing women’s
valuable contributions to lawmaking. Those
differences also highlight why this Court—no longer
composed entirely of men—can and should show
greater deference to the outcomes of state legislative
processes on the issue of abortion: Women are better
represented now than at any time in our country’s
history. And, although abortion is far from being solely
a women’s issue, the increase in women’s voices and
perspectives guarantees that, as legislatures across
the country debate the issue, women’s concerns will
not be ignored or minimized like they might have been
when Roe was decided.
1. Even short of overturning Roe—and amici agree
with Petitioner that the Court should do that here—
showing greater deference to state legislatures would
be consistent with the basic presumption that duly
enacted state laws are constitutional. That
presumption arose because the Constitution is not
intended to authorize an attitude of “paternalism”
toward state legislatures. Lochner v. New York, 198
U.S. 45, 75 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Yet a fair
reading of Roe suggests that it was in fact driven by
that very kind of paternalism. See, e.g., Roe, 410 U.S.
at 162 (“[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory
of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant
woman[.]”).
18
Rather than helping women, what the Court
actually did in Roe was to strip everyone, including
future women legislators like Amici, of the right to do
what legislators have always done on issues of
significant importance: try to “persuade one another”
and then vote on the issue. Casey, 505 U.S. at 979
(Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting
in part). Women can, and do, have different views on
abortion. They can, and do, reach different conclusions
on how abortion should be regulated. And now, as at
no other point in our nation’s history, they can, and do,
have the political power to address these issues the
proper way—through their own legislatures, not
through the federal judiciary.
2. Indeed, even in the states where women are
least represented, women are leading the way with
abortion legislation. For example, West Virginia’s
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which
unanimously passed the West Virginia Senate and
overwhelmingly passed its House in 2020, was
introduced by Delegate Ruth Rowan. 40 Similarly,
Louisiana’s Act 620, which this Court invalidated last
year in June Medical Services v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103
(2020) (plurality opinion), was introduced by
Representative Katrina Jackson and other women in
Louisiana. 41 The same is true here—Mississippi’s
Gestational Age Act was introduced by a group of
women, including Representative Becky Currie,
40 Press Release, Gov. Jim Justice, Gov. Justice signs BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (Mar. 2, 2020),
https://tinyurl.com/GovJusticeArticle.
41 Act 620 (H.B. 388), La. Leg., Reg. Sess. (2014),
https://tinyurl.com/Act620.
19
Representative Stacey Wilkes,
Representative Ashley Henley. 42
and
the
late
With each of these three bills, when it came time to
vote, women voted both for and against the bill. 43 Any
assumption, therefore, that abortion is an issue on
which women will vote in lockstep is belied by the
evidence.
3. Women also influence legislation in myriad ways
beside serving in state legislatures. In “every
presidential election since 1980,” for example, women
“have registered and voted at higher rates than
men.” 44 Those higher rates have substantial effects
when converted to raw numbers: In each of the recent
42 Gestational Age Act, H.B. 1510, Miss. Leg., Reg. Sess.
(2018), https://tinyurl.com/HB1510.
43 W.V. S., 84th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Vote & Passage of H.B.
4007, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Prot. Act (Feb. 19,
2020), https://tinyurl.com/HB4007Senate; W.V. H.D., 84th Leg.,
2nd Reg. Sess., Vote & Passage-S. Amend. H.B. 4007, Born-Alive
Abortion
Survivors
Prot.
Act
(Feb.
18,
2020),
https://tinyurl.com/HB4007House; La. H.R., 2014 Reg. Sess.,
Vote on H.B. 388 Am. by S. to be Concurred in S. Amends. (May
21, 2014), https://tinyurl.com/Act620House; La. S., 2014 Reg.
Sess., H.B. 388 3rd Reading & Final Passage (May 14,
2014), https://tinyurl.com/Act620Senate; Miss. S., 2018 Reg.
Sess., Vote & Passage as Amended of H.B. 1510, Gestational Age
Act, https://tinyurl.com/HB1510Senate; Miss. H.R., 2018 Reg.
Sess., Concurred in S. Amend. of H.B. 1510, Gestational Age Act,
https://tinyurl.com/HB1510House.
44 Rutgers St. Univ. of N.J., Ctr. for Am. Women and Pol.,
Gender Differences in Voter Turnout,
https://tinyurl.com/m2u44n7c.
20
national elections, women have “cast almost 10 million
more votes than men.” 45
The influence of women, however, extends beyond
the ballot box. Women-led advocacy groups, including
Amicus The Susan B. Anthony List, regularly raise
money and contact voters through “door-to-door
canvassing, voter mail, texting, and digital
communications.” 46
Other
women-led
groups
spanning the political spectrum similarly influence
legislation through their advocacy. 47
In short, women are involved at every step of the
political process, not just in introducing and voting on
legislation.
4. Given that women are actively involved in
elections, advocacy, and the drafting and passing of
45 Ibid.
46 Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser: President,
https://www.sba-list.org/marjorie-dannenfelser.
See also Network of Enlightened Women, About,
https://enlightenedwomen.org/about/#Mission (helping women
“confidently advocate for pro-liberty ideas in their schools,
workplaces, homes, and communities”); League of Women Voters,
About Us, 100 Years of LWV, https://www.lwv.org/aboutus/history (The League of Women Voters is a “nonpartisan,
activist, grassroots organization that believes voters should play
a critical role in democracy.”); Moms Demand Action, About, Our
Story, https://momsdemandaction.org/about/ (Moms Demand
Action, which “has established a volunteer chapter in every state”
works to “pass stronger gun laws.”); Eagle Forum, About Us, The
Future
of
Eagle
Forum
(Jan.
4,
2021),
https://eagleforum.org/about/what-is-eagle-forum.html
(summarizing a “proven track record” of “advancing conservative
causes at each and every level of government across the United
States”).
47
21
abortion legislation, this Court should take the
opportunity that this case presents to clarify that
federal courts should regularly defer to state
legislatures and the women that, with increasing
regularity, make up their ranks. For reasons well
explained by Petitioner (Br. at 11-36), the Court could,
and should, do this by overturning Roe and Casey,
thereby returning the entire issue to the Nation’s
legislatures.
But even if the Court does not overrule those
decisions, it should make clear that duly enacted
abortion regulations, like other state health-andsafety regulations, carry with them a presumption of
constitutionality, not a presumption of invalidity. And
on that basis the Court should recognize and respect
the state interests advanced by Mississippi and hold
that the law at issue here is not unconstitutional
simply because it bans abortion before viability. See,
e.g., Pet. Br. 36-37.
Moreover, by more regularly deferring to state
legislatures on abortion-related issues, the Court
could recover from some of the harms caused by what
Justice Scalia called its “self-awarded sovereignty
over” abortion. Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492
U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and
in the judgment). And just as the debates over the
rights of women in the 1970s propelled women to the
polls and to elected office, debates about abortion will
likely do the same if this Court affords greater leeway
to state legislatures.
In sum, because women are much better situated
today to protect their own interests through
22
legislation, the Court
opportunity to do so.
should
give
them
the
CONCLUSION
Even though they have not yet reached gender
parity in most legislatures, women today are far better
represented than at any point in the country’s history.
As their numbers have grown, so too has their ability
to effect substantive change. For this reason, the
Court should give more deference to legislatures, the
bodies principally tasked under our Constitution with
responsibility for protecting the people’s health and
welfare, in the context of abortion regulation.
Respectfully submitted,
H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI
Counsel of Record
HANNAH C. SMITH
SCHAERR|JAFFE LLP
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 787-1060
cbartolomucci@schaerr-jaffe.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
July 29, 2021
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A – LIST OF AMICI LEGISLATORS
Legislator
State
Rep. Terri Collins
AL
Rep. Karilyn Brown
AR
Sen. Nancy Barto
AZ
Rep. Shawnna Bolick
AZ
Rep. Janice Rich
CO
Rep. Tonya Van Beber
CO
Rep. Irene Haines
CT
Rep. Ruth Briggs King
DE
Sen. Kelli Stargel
FL
Rep. Ginny Ehrhart
GA
Rep. Sheri Gilligan
GA
Rep. Leesa Hagan
GA
Rep. Jodi Lott
GA
Sen. Annette Sweeney
IA
Sen. Christy Zito
ID
Rep. Judy Boyle
ID
Rep. Barbara Ehardt
ID
Rep. Linda Wright Hartgen
ID
Rep. Julie Yamamoto
ID
Rep. Amy Grant
IL
Sen. Elizabeth Brown
IN
Sen. Caryn Tyson
KS
Rep. Regina Huff
KY
Rep. Melinda Gibbons Prunty
KY
2a
Legislator
State
Rep. Nancy Tate
KY
Rep. Kathy Edmonston
LA
Rep. Sheila Harrington
MA
Del. Susan Krebs
MD
Sen. Stacey Guerin
ME
Rep. Abigail Griffin
ME
Rep. Heidi Sampson
ME
Rep. Peggy Scott
MN
Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman
MO
Sen. Jenifer Branning
MS
Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway
MT
Rep. Patricia McElraft
NC
Rep. Karen Rohr
ND
Sen. Joni Albrecht
NE
Sen. Suzanne Geist
NE
Rep. Beth Folsom
NH
Rep. Linda Gould
NH
Rep. Susan Homola
NH
Rep. Jeanine Notter
NH
Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien
NH
Assemb. BettyLou Decroce
NJ
Rep. Cathryn Brown
NM
Assemb. Alexis Hansen
NV
Sen. Pamela Helming
NY
Sen. Kristina Roegner
OH
3a
Legislator
State
Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur
OH
Rep. Jennifer Gross
OH
Rep. Jena Powell
OH
Rep. Jean Schmidt
OH
Sen. Julie Daniels
OK
Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader
OK
Rep. Tammy Townley
OK
Sen. Kim Thatcher
OR
Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson
OR
Rep. Bobby Levy
OR
Rep. Lily Morgan
OR
Rep. Ann Flood
PA
Rep. Milou Mackenzie
PA
Rep. Tracy Pennycuick
PA
Rep. Kathy Rapp
PA
Rep. Sherry Roberts
RI
Rep. Lin Bennett
SC
Rep. Shannon Erickson
SC
Rep. Melissa Oremus
SC
Sen. Maggie Sutton
SD
Rep. Robin Smith
TN
Rep. Valoree Swanson
TX
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee
UT
Del. Amanda Batten
VA
Rep. Vicki Strong
VT
4a
Legislator
State
Sen. Judy Warnick
WA
Rep. Carolyn Eslick
WA
Sen. Patricia Rucker
WV
Del. Kayla Kessinger
WV
Rep. Sue Wilson
WY
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
1975
0.7%
15%
20%
2.2%
2.5%
16%
13.9%
16.1%
8.1%
4.2%
13.2%
9.5%
5.9%
6.0%
9.3%
1992
5.7%
23.3%
34.4%
7.4%
18.3%
31.0%
23.0%
12.9%
18.8%
14.4%
27.6%
28.6%
18.6%
17.3%
14.7%
2005
10.7%
18.3%
33.3%
16.3%
30.8%
33.0%
29.4%
33.9%
24.4%
18.2%
30.3%
27.6%
27.7%
17.3%
20.0%
2021
15.7%
30%
43.3%
23.7%
31.7%
46.0%
34.2%
30.6%
34.4%
33.1%
32.9%
31.4%
40.1%
24.7%
28.7%
% Increase
2242.9%
200.0%
216.5%
1077.3%
1268.0%
287.5%
246.0%
190.1%
424.7%
788.1%
249.2%
330.5%
679.7%
411.7%
308.6%
APPENDIX B
Percentage of Women in State Legislatures By Year
5a
State
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
1975
5.5%
3.6%
1.4%
13%
10.1%
5.7%
6.1%
4.0%
3.4%
6.1%
9.3%
2.0%
11.7%
24.6%
7.5%
4.5%
4.3%
1992
27.3%
5.8%
6.9%
32.3%
23.4%
18.5%
14.9%
20.9%
6.9%
15.7%
20.7%
18.4%
19.0%
33.3%
12.5%
14.3%
12.8%
2005
32.7%
12.3%
17.4%
23.1%
35.6%
25.0%
20.3%
29.9%
12.6%
20.8%
24.7%
24.5%
33.3%
30.4%
15.8%
31.3%
22.2%
2021
28.5%
26.8%
18.8%
43.5%
41.0%
31.0%
35.8%
35.8%
15.5%
26.4%
32.7%
26.5%
60.3%
36.1%
30.8%
43.8%
34.3%
% Increase
518.2%
744.4%
1342.9%
334.6%
405.9%
543.9%
586.9%
895.0%
455.9%
432.8%
351.6%
1325.0%
515.4%
146.8%
410.7%
973.3%
797.7%
6a
State
N. Carolina
N. Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S. Carolina
S. Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W. Virginia
Wisconsin
1975
8.8%
10.5%
6.1%
4.0%
12.2%
3.6%
6.0%
4.1%
10.6%
3.8%
4.4%
7.7%
14.7%
4.3%
12.2%
6.7%
7.6%
1992
14.7%
14.5%
15.2%
8.7%
24.4%
9.5%
16.7%
12.9%
24.8%
11.4%
12.7%
11.5%
31.1%
12.1%
32.7%
20.9%
24.2%
2005
22.9%
16.3%
19.7%
14.8%
27.8%
13.4%
16.8%
8.2%
16.2%
17.4%
19.3%
20.2%
33.3%
15.0%
33.3%
15.7%
25.8%
2021
26.5%
22.0%
30.3%
20.8%
44.4%
29.6%
45.1%
17.6%
28.6%
17.4%
26.5%
23.1%
42.2%
30.0%
41.5%
11.9%
31.1%
% Increase
301.1%
209.5%
496.7%
520.0%
363.9%
822.2%
751.7%
429.3%
269.8%
457.9%
602.3%
300.0%
287.1%
697.7%
340.2%
177.6%
409.2%
7a
State
Wyoming
1975
7.6%
1992
24.5%
2005
14.4%
2021
17.8%
% Increase
234.2%
8a
9a
The data in this table can be found at the following
sources. Center for American Women and Politics,
State
Fact
Sheet
–
Alabama,
https://tinyurl.com/ALCAWP; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – Alaska,
https://tinyurl.com/AKCAWP; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – Arizona,
https://tinyurl.com/AZCAWP; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – Arkansas,
https://tinyurl.com/ARCAWP1; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – California,
https://tinyurl.com/CAWPCAL; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – Colorado,
https://tinyurl.com/COLORCAWP;
Center
for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Connecticut, https://tinyurl.com/CTCAWP1; Center
for American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Delaware, https://tinyurl.com/DECAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Florida, https://tinyurl.com/FLCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Georgia, https://tinyurl.com/GACAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Hawaii, https://tinyurl.com/HICAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Idaho, https://tinyurl.com/IDAHOCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Illinois, https://tinyurl.com/ILLCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Indiana, https://tinyurl.com/INDYCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Iowa, https://tinyurl.com/IOWACAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Kansas, https://tinyurl.com/KANSASCAWP; Center
10a
for American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Kentucky, https://tinyurl.com/KYCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Louisiana, https://tinyurl.com/1LA-CAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Maine, https://tinyurl.com/MaineCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Maryland, https://tinyurl.com/1MD-CAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Massachusetts,
https://tinyurl.com/MASSCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Michigan, https://tinyurl.com/MichCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Minnesota, https://tinyurl.com/MinnCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Mississippi, https://tinyurl.com/MissCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Missouri, https://tinyurl.com/MissouriCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Montana, https://tinyurl.com/MontanaCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Nebraska, https://tinyurl.com/NEBCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet – Nevada, https://tinyurl.com/NEVCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet
–
New
Hampshire,
https://tinyurl.com/NHCAWP; Center for American
Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – New Jersey,
https://tinyurl.com/NewJerseyCAWP;
Center
for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – New
Mexico, https://tinyurl.com/NMCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – New
York, https://tinyurl.com/NewYorkCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
11a
North Carolina, https://tinyurl.com/NCarolinaCAWP;
Center for American Women and Politics, State Fact
Sheet
–
North
Dakota,
https://tinyurl.com/NDakotaCAWP;
Center
for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Ohio, https://tinyurl.com/OHIOCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Oklahoma, https://tinyurl.com/OKCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Oregon, https://tinyurl.com/ORCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Pennsylvania, https://tinyurl.com/PACAWP; Center
for American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Rhode Island, https://tinyurl.com/RICAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
South Carolina, https://tinyurl.com/SCCAWP; Center
for American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
South Dakota, https://tinyurl.com/SDCAWP; Center
for American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Tennessee, https://tinyurl.com/TNCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Texas, https://tinyurl.com/TXCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Utah, https://tinyurl.com/UTCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Vermont, https://tinyurl.com/VTCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Virginia, https://tinyurl.com/VACAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Washington, https://tinyurl.com/WACAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet – West
Virginia, https://tinyurl.com/WVCAWP; Center for
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Wisconsin, https://tinyurl.com/WICAWP; Center for
12a
American Women and Politics, State Fact Sheet –
Wyoming, https://tinyurl.com/WYCAWP.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.