Swimming Upstream: Sperm Donor Liability after <i>Dobbs</i>

In this article, the author argues that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe and Casey, in conjunction with multiple states’ decisions to ban abortion, reflects an implicit view of moral responsibility for fetal welfare. Utilizing Rivka Weinberg’s Hazmat Theory of parental responsibility, along with Daniel Groll’s principled defense of sperm donation, the author explains why appeals to bodily autonomy do not provide refuge for sperm donors seeking to avoid moral or legal liability for abortions and that the overturning of pro-choice precedents like Roe and Casey enhances the moral and legal responsibilities and liabilities not only of persons with uteruses but also persons with sperm.