The future of abortion rights in the US
As this article goes to publication, news has broke that the governor of Oklahoma has signed into law the strictest abortion ban in the country. Kristian discusses the devastating social, economic, and public health implications of abortion restrictions in lieu of leaked Supreme Court plans to permit similarly severe bans across the nation.
Update: on 24/06/2022 the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade.
It came as a shock to many Americans when late in the evening Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion striking down a 50-year precedent that made abortion access legal in the United States (US). By the next day, the leak was one of the most widely discussed topics throughout the country.
Much has been said already about the political machinations that produced this outcome. However, only now, as the news continues to sink in, are people beginning to reconcile with the further implications and impacts this opinion will undoubtedly have on American life. In keeping with this trend, instead of focusing on the inflammatory opinion which will likely strike down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, let us focus on what impact this decision will have on the women who stand to lose their rights to bodily autonomy and the country as a whole.
For context, the 1973 decision passed in Roe v. Wade that made abortion access legal to women in the US was largely based on the constitutional right to privacy. Subsequently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a woman’s right to choice by forming a new regulation: state governments could not impose an "undue burden" by creating any “substanital obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viablity”.
Image credit: Unsplash
With these two cases as precedent, abortion access has remained a right that was largely believed impossible to retract. Despite this, many state governments have been creative in finding ways to restrict access to abortion, including the infamous six week ban in Texas (discussed here), the 15 week ban in Mississippi, and most recently the outright ban in Oklahoma. Together, these cases forewarn that the Supreme Court is ready to overturn Roe by returning the decision on the right to abortion to the states themselves.
“Alito fails to consider that notions of liberty and privacy must be adapted to continue to protect citizens in the twenty-first century. ”
In a post-Roe world, as many as 28 states would ban or tightly restrict access to abortion within a few months. But what would that mean for the women living in these states? Well, the most self-evident repercussion is that it would become incredibly challenging for a woman seeking an abortion to get one. Some argue that a simple work-around would be to travel to a state where it is legal. However, this argument neglects to understand the geographical placement of the states where the abortion bans are likely to occur. If this ruling were to be passed, many neighbouring states in the south have laws in place to ban abortions with immedite effect. For instance, if a woman were to seek an abortion in Louisiana, they would have to travel across multiple state lines to find a place that has protected abortion laws. While this may be possible for some, many women lacking sufficient means, support, or information may be unable to make the journey. Inequity in abortion access will further a massive disparity between those with resources seeking abortions and those without, widening socioeconomic inequities even more in years to come.
Secondly, if the decision was passed, we could assume that the rate of unwanted pregnancies would increase. As described in Dr Foster’s book The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion, unwanted pregancies can lead to several harmful outcomes for both mother and child. According to findings of Dr. Foster, women denied an abortion are more likely to remain attached to an abusive partner, have worse pregnancy-related health outcomes, and were four times more likely to live below the federal poverty level.
These harmful outcomes have implications beyond individual women. Some economists, including the US Secretary of the Treasury, have expressed concerns for the future of the US economy if abortion access is restricted. Secretary Janet Yellen testified to the Senate Banking Committee saying: “I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.” Indeed, several decades of economic research back this claim, demonstrating a causal relationship between access to abortion and the many multifaceted aspects of a woman’s life such as education, career, and life outcomes of their other children.
“In a post-Roe world, as many as 28 states would ban or tightly restrict access to abortion within a few months. But what would that mean for the women living in these states?”
Others fear that such a landmark ruling will set the stage for other regressive rulings in the future. Justice Alito, who wrote this opinion, went to great lengths to assure that this ruling would be limited to Roe and Casey. However, some legal scholars believe the logic here could be applied to other legal frameworks that are not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”. Legal scholar Kenji Yoshino argued that this ruling could serve as a precedent to overturn other decisions based on the same legal framework, such as the right to gay or interracial marriage and even the right to contraception. Many of the rights that most Americans would agree to be fair and fundamental are in fact upheld only by the notion of ‘liberty’ protected under the 14th amendment to the constitution. Justice Alito uses an ‘originalist’ lens as the grounds to his opinion on overturning Roe v. Wade. This means he appeals to a legal philosophy which seeks to understand documents through their original intention at the time they were written, which, for the US Constitution, was in 1787. In rigidly adhering to this stance, Alito fails to consider that notions of liberty and privacy must be adapted to continue to protect citizens in the twenty-first century.
Image credit: Unsplash
Despite the understandable outrage against the draft opinion, we must try to remain optimistic about the future. Already, activists are fighting to make abortion accessible to women living in states where it will likely be banned. Although the fight will be long and challenging, it is a crucial one that will shape the lives of, and be led by, countless women. Finally, it is important to remember that the initial ruling in Roe was rooted in public health concerns about the prevalence of botched abortions where safe and legal abortion are banned or inaccessible. Across social media, various versions of the pointed proclamation have been trending: “you can never ban abortion, you can only ban safe abortions”. If we are committed to maintaining and improving advances made in public health outcomes, we must do all we can to protect this fundamental right for as many women as possible.
The Keppel Health Review recognises that not all people who want or receive abortions identify as women. Resources and information on gender affirming abortion care can be found here.
To find your local abortion fund and to stay educated about abortion access options, see National Network of Abortion Funds.