UC Sociology Expert Files Amicus Brief in Controversial Supreme Court Case

After years of studying abortion accessibility, UC Sociology Assistant Professor Danielle Bessett wants to set the record straight: A woman is fourteen times more likely to be struck by lightning than to die from a legally performed abortion. 

That’s why Bessett is passionate about a pending Supreme Court case that challenges abortion restrictions currently pending in Texas. So passionate that she agreed to put her expertise into historic record and sign her first ever “amicus brief” to the high court in support of Whole Woman's Health in a case that could redefine abortion access. 

The case challenges a Texas state law that would add what Bessett maintains are unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers. She said these restrictions have more to do with decreasing the number of abortion clinics in the state than they do with women’s health and safety.  Fewer clinics would mean women might have to drive hundreds of miles to reach a clinic, she said. Less access to legal abortions could result in women performing abortions on themselves, a sometimes dangerous practice known as self-induction.

Bessett’s interest in abortion legislation dates to the 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood Supreme Court case, which, in the end, prohibited the state of Pennsylvania from banning most abortions.

“The right to abortion is legal,” Bessett said. “If people have the right to do it, they should have the right to access it. There is an important principle that extends beyond reproductive health.”

Her rigorous research about abortion access and its effects on women led social scientists and lawyers to approach Bessett to join them as an expert signatory on the Supreme Court brief.

“There’s nothing more exciting than seeing good evidence inform the legislation and legal decisions that govern our country,” Bessett said. “This is about evidence, this goes beyond labels: pro-choice and pro-life.” 

She said the Texas law being contested by Whole Women’s Health would not only make it harder for women to reach a location where they could have a safe and legal abortion, it would also likely delay and thus increase the cost of the procedure, putting working class and poor women at a disadvantage. 

“Wealthy women will always have access to abortions,” Bessett said.

According to Bessett, the outcome of Whole Women v. Cole could affect Ohio. Ohio already has restrictions similar to those in Texas, some of which are at issue in this case. In both states, abortion providers must have hospital admitting privileges. 

The irony is that because abortion is so safe, abortion providers don’t see enough complications to qualify them for hospital admitting privileges in many cases, Bessett said. “The claim that abortions are not safe and providers need admitting privileges is inaccurate.” 

Not only does Bessett take a lot of pride in her published work, she’s also passionate about her teaching. She currently offers reproductive sociology classes for both graduate and undergraduate students. 

“This kind of engagement with the legal arena helps me become a better teacher. I can talk about how this research really matters in the real world,” Bessett said.

Prior to writing this Supreme Court brief, Bessett displayed her expertise in a report she wrote for the Massachusetts State Legislature, Experience of Women Seeking Subsidized Insurance for Abortion Care in Massachusetts. The report found that more than half the women in Massachusetts who were interviewed had to postpone their abortions due to issues with their subsidized insurance.