Roe v. Wade provided women with abortion rights for nearly 50 years. The Fourteenth Amendment allowed for protections at the Federal level with additional legislation available at the state level. Overturning the groundbreaking 1973 decision with the stroke of a pen by the current U.S. Supreme Court has left women vulnerable. One argument is that old white men in 1973 should not have been making these types of decisions…and while that may be a welcomed perspective, it doesn’t negate the fact that women’s rights are still largely left in the hands of older white males, but at a state level, instead.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice is personal. Roe v. Wade made it possible to peaceably exercise that stance if a situation to exercise it arose.
Abortions are more than just terminating unwanted pregnancies, as the agenda of many politicians so firmly perpetuates is the common narrative. Abortions had been available for a plethora of reasons. A decision to terminate a pregnancy could be due to health reasons, economic reasons, social reasons, or a combination of a few things. Included in these reasons, for example, is preventing the birth of children with certain expected defects that are anticipated to unduly hinder them from having normal lives. Under many circumstances, these would be individuals whose lives would be riddled with medical care and expenses. If you listen to anyone who is willing to be open and transparent and has been through or may be considering an abortion, all options are weighed heavily before moving forward with a decision to terminate a pregnancy. It’s not at all a light decision, and following through with it sticks with them for years thereafter.
We already see legislation proposed and passed that makes it more difficult for women to obtain abortions. Discussion regarding the “…thirteen states [with] trigger laws that would immediately ban abortions” upon the overturned decision is a huge concern [1]. Within hours of the decision, Oklahoma’s trigger laws were enacted, fully banning abortions in that state [2]. And its not alone. Following the overturned Roe decision, now less than half of the states still permit abortions. Often, there are exceptions made for incest and rape. With rape, that exception would typically require that the rape is actually reported. Granted rape should be reported, but not all rapes are. The justifications vary. The requirement leaves women with yet another imposition on personal choice.
Overall, the problem with stripping women of the protections that were provided under Roe is that each state’s elected officials’ belief systems will ultimately fuel the state’s approach to abortion rights, or the lack thereof. Being that belief systems generally differ geographically, there may be a drastic difference in the rights afforded to someone in Louisiana versus someone in Vermont, for example. Moreover, not all elected officials’ stances align with the voters they represent. While it may be true that these officials can be voted out, how are unwanted restrictions combated in the interim?
The personal aspect of abortion rights will be simply lacking, leaving each individual vulnerable to an outsider’s opinion and preferred course of action all too often rooted in what they think they know, and lacking in professional guidance.
In support of abortion being a fundamental right, the argument often focuses on women being able to be in control of their own bodies. While this absolutely falls within the realm of Women’s Rights, there is also an underlying component which leads one to question the extent to which we allow government control over human rights. Will we now be subjected to even more government control at the state level?
There were already, and still are, stark differences in opinion about COVID vaccinations and government control; why give the states even more control on the issue of abortion rights? And let’s explore the COVID analogy, for a moment.
Former President Trump took a hands-off approach and allowed for states to create policies and regulations around COVID. Many of us were, and still are, at odds with each other on how to handle masks, vaccinations, etc. Confusion and chaos abound. We still get into altercations because of our differences in opinions. Although COVID restrictions and vaccinations do not seem to give rise to the same level of moral scrutiny as abortion rights, the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with legal influence and control as it pertains to health.
There is much legislation on the books that results in controlling people’s lives. The irony of this level of control is that the whole premise behind coming to a “new world” and establishing the “united” states that was intended was to escape the level of control exercised by good old Great Britain…I suppose the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
If we are to be stripped of that which has been considered a fundamental right, what other choices will be stripped from us? Granted, this is not a right provided in The Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendments, strictly speaking, but it is a basic human right to decide whether to procreate. Yes, medical advances and technology have provided many alternatives to the traditional means of procreation; however, that does not negate the fact that it is still a basic human right.
How can we, on the one hand, celebrate Pride Month and Juneteenth and so on and so forth…all of which contain the element of freedom in some form, fashion or other, and at the same time restrict women?
Is this pre-1920?
Why are women still left susceptible to a lack of protection, all while still fighting for our own places in society amid so many other rights afforded to many other groups? Unequal protection. Unequal pay. Unequal procreation rights. Why are we so consistently left without a choice?
Citations
- Today, Season 2022, Episode 147, NBC, 2022.
- https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-anti-abortion-trigger-bill-activated/40408436