Roe V. Wade Decision And Challenges Of Abortion Rights In America Today
In 1973, Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman who used the pseudo-name ‘Roe’, grew up in poverty, wanted to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. At the time, wealthy American women could obtain safe, legalized abortions by traveling to other countries or bribe a doctor to secretly perform their abortions. However, McCorvey and many other women could not afford these options, forcing them to turn to illegal or self-induced abortions. Countless women have attempted to perform dangerous self-abortions by inserting objects into their uteruses or consuming dangerous drugs or chemicals. These methods resulted in health complications, death, infertility, or pain.
In light of these issues, the case of Roe v. Wade allowed the court to rule that the Constitution protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Other cases, such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, further supported the constitutionality of abortions. Over time, abortion rights were connected to more abstract and generally applicable concepts of liberty. The Court also connected women’s rights to abortion on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, American citizens’ right to privacy, and reproductive rights as an enumerated power. However, the States are allowed to place any number of restrictions on abortion, even to the point where the state bans nearly all abortions except for a few cases.
Around the world, women have used abortion to control their reproduction at every point in history and society, regardless of legality. Historically, abortions were widely practiced until the 1880s, when the United States decided to pass anti-abortion legislation to confine women to their traditional roles as homemakers and child-bearers. This took a tremendous toll on women’s lives and health. Eventually, abortion became legal in all 50 states. However, there is still controversy about abortion legislation.
Today, abortion is one of the most controversial social and political issues in the United States. Consequently, abortion is used as a political tool by the Republicans to gain support among the conservatives, while the Democrats use their pro-choice stance to mobilize voters who consider abortion as a feasible option for pregnant women. Abortion stances have the power to influence political powers and voting behavior in all levels of government. Despite the recent abortion restrictions enacted by the federal and state governments, abortion should remain as a legal option because it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, promotes safe procedures to terminate pregnancies, protects a woman’s right to choose, and involves the strenuous circumstances of the pregnant woman.
The ruling of Roe v. Wade is challenged by the extremely conservative advocates who want to ban or restrict abortions. In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion care, except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, and many states followed this example. As stated by Alyssa Engstrom, the Hyde Amendment effectively made it more difficult for low-income women and women of color to obtain abortions. In 1980, Harris v. McRae supported the Hyde Amendment, stating that women’s constitutional rights were not violated by the ban on federal funding for abortions.
In addition to the federal government, several conservative states attempt to nearly ban all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and/or life endangerment. An example of this is the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where strict Pennsylvania abortion laws included mandatory waiting periods, parental consent, and prejudiced information. According to E. C. Duckworth, the Court left “the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests”. Although the case affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade with a win of five to four, the Court allowed laws to limit access to abortions in any stage of the pregnancy. For instance, in 2013, the heartbeat bill was struck down as unconstitutional according to the ruling of Roe v. Wade. The aftermath of Planned Parenthood v. Casey led to 1187 abortion restrictions and continuous attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.6 In recent years, several states proposed heartbeat bills, such as Ohio and Missouri. Although state judges have temporarily blocked excessively restrictive abortion bills, nine states have passed bills to unreasonably limit abortion this year.
In the United States, President Donald Trump’s pro-life stance on abortion allowed many conservative states to pass anti-abortion bills that unreasonably restrict or explicitly outlaw abortion when performed early in the pregnancy. In addition to state laws, President Trump nominated conservative judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, federally defunded Planned Parenthood clinics, and reinstated the global gag rule to restrict reproductive health care abroad. On Jan 23, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order enacting the global gag rule, an anti-abortion policy that states nongovernmental organizations receiving American family planning funding cannot inform the public or educate their government on the need to make safe abortion available, provide legal abortion services, or provide advice on where to get an abortion. Trump’s Global Gag Rule prohibits the United States from aiding groups who educate their communities on safe abortions. This law negates human rights standards for women who depend on international aid-funded clinics, healthcare facilities, and organizations. On a global scale, Trump’s Global Gag Rule increased unintended pregnancies, illegal abortions, maternal deaths, and newborn deaths. Overall, this policy undermines free-speech, dismisses reproductive health, and imposes an anti-feminist agenda.
In addition to Trump’s Global Gag Rule, fake abortion clinics, formally known as crisis pregnancy centers, became the anti-abortion lawmakers’ safety net for reproductive healthcare. According to Maria McFadden Maffucci, fake abortion clinics provide false information about abortion, as well as refusing to present evidence-based contraceptive options to their patients.8 She emphasized that “There are, in other words, thousands of privately-funded pregnancy centers offering free services, goods, and support to women and their families, compared to 780 abortion businesses worried about their bottom line”. Since crisis pregnancy centers are more common than, located near, and designed similarly to actual abortion clinics, people tend to mistake pregnancy centers for abortion clinics. Crisis pregnancy centers are also more likely to come up in online search engines than real abortion services on Google. There have also been cases of falsifying information and deceptive business practices, such as misrepresenting the age of the fetus, delaying the procedure to make sure the patient is past the deadline, and pressuring the patients to reconsider their reproductive health decisions. These fake abortion clinics recently benefit from Title X, specifically the federal family planning program.
As stated by Maffucci, Title X is a federally-funded, government policy that promotes positive birth outcomes and healthy families, provides health services such as contraceptive services, treatment of sexually-transmitted diseases, and other reproductive health care. Since the 1970s, Title X has decreased the number of abortions in the United States and helped low-income Americans receive reproductive services. Generally, they are funded by religious organizations, pro-life advocates, and state taxpayer dollars, disregarding women’s choices and deceiving the public for the sake of “saving lives”. In contrast, “the Court held that the requirement that abortion services be completely separate from Title X-funded services-regarding staff, facilities and record keeping-was a permissible construction of the statute”. However, abortion services are necessary to maintain public health.
Essentially, denying women access to legal abortion services does not prevent them from having abortions. In reality, it will increase the likelihood of receiving illegal abortions in unsafe conditions. As well as being political controversial, abortion is a public health issue. Illegal abortions are more likely to be performed by untrained people in unsanitary conditions or with dangerous surgical procedures, increasing the likelihood of the pregnant woman’s death. According to Willard Cates and Roger Rochat, “the total number of abortion deaths in the United States declined from 88 in 1972 to 56 in 1973 to 48 in 1974. Eighty-five percent of the decline is due to the fact that fewer women are dying from illegal (i.e., non-physician) abortions”. Their data also illustrates a dramatic decline in the number of illegal abortion deaths in the United States following the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decisions.14 Abortion legalization and services need to be more accessible to decrease pregnancy-related mortality and reproductive health issues.
In addition to being a public health issue, abortion is also a significant aspect of women’s right to choose and control over their reproductive health. Currently, the entire debate about abortion pits the fetus against the woman. Yet, the government is majorly made of male representatives, leaving abortion legalization in the hands of men. In 2019, 126 women hold seats in the United States Congress, comprising 23.6% of the 535 members: 25 women serve in the Senate and 101 women serve in the House of Representatives. Laws that restrict abortions prevent women from exercising any of their human rights or fundamental freedoms, which connects this issue to gender inequality. As previously stated, the United States’ male political figures passed anti-abortion legislation to confine women to their traditional roles as homemakers and child-bearers.2 Similarly, in our modern society, women are forced to decide to continue with their everyday lives or become mothers.
By banning abortions, many women have no choice but to go through with their unwanted pregnancies. While this seems to be ideal for pro-life advocates, most do not consider the negative consequences of preventing abortions. According to “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives”, a survey from 2004 concluded “the two most common reasons were ‘having a baby would dramatically change my life’ and ‘I can’t afford a baby now’ (cited by 74% and 73%). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%)”. For instance, a college or high school student may become pregnant, leaving her with two options: dropping out of school to raise her child, abort the pregnancy and continue her education, give her child to the foster care system, or have someone else, such as a family member, raise her child.
If a woman wanted to keep their child, she may not have the financial preparedness to afford an abortion or to take care of the child. Furthermore, rather than having the child grow up in a dysfunctional home or make the child feel unwanted, people choose to terminate the pregnancy because they do not want the child to suffer long-term difficulties or emotional distress. Unwanted pregnancies continuation will be detrimental to women’s physical and emotional health. Decisions made about a person’s body, specifically one’s reproductive capacity, belong in the sphere of private decision-making. When an unwanted child is born, the parents rarely will seek quality time with the child and each conversation will be uncomfortable or emotionally draining. Others felt that their fetus’s health had been compromised due to lack of prenatal care, the risk of birth defects due to their age or genetics, a history of miscarriages, and fetal exposure to drugs or prescription medications. Having a child could interfere with a woman’s education, is unwise due to financial instability, unsuitable environments, and concerns about the child’s health and upbringing.
While some may understand the socioeconomic conditions and health concerns of the “mother,” other pro-life advocates may advise people to give these infants up for adoption. However, the decision to place a child for adoption is nowhere near the easy choice that anti-abortionists believe. Although adoption is a valid option for pregnant women with religious beliefs or personal reasons, most women are either too far along with their pregnancy, did not have access to abortion clinics, or could not afford to receive the abortions. Furthermore, there are over 400,000 orphans in the United States’ foster care system, while there were at least 12 abortions per 1000 women. The rates for adoption and abortion are vastly disproportionate, suggesting that women themselves are not overly interested in the adoption as an option. As for the unwanted children, they have an increased risk of counseling appointments or behavioral problems because their basic emotional needs have not been met, evident by their social development and school performance.
Over four decades after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, pro-life and pro-choice advocates continue to clash over abortion rights in court, through voting, and in state legislatures. As the United States’ conservative political figures attempt to restrict reproductive rights, women continue to fight for their right to have abortions. Governments should respect a woman’s human right to make her own decisions regarding her reproductive life. Ultimately, it should be the woman’s choice to abort the fetus. Abortion should be a legal option without as many restrictions because it is guaranteed by the Constitution, maintains public health, and depends on personal decisions that account for current circumstances.
