Six Steps to Bridging Our Abortion Divide
It’s Not as Wide as We Think
Decades before the 2021 SCOTUS allowed a Texas ban, a young catholic girl believed she could stop abortion with a poem. Just four years after Roe v. Wade, it was penned from the perspective of an aborted fetus, the lines copied from a scrawled draft onto a clean sheet of seventh grade notepaper and mailed to the St. Anthony Messenger, a Roman Catholic periodical found stacked in the family room. For my efforts I experienced my first writing rejection — a blessing, for it was a truly awful poem. Still, my twelve-year-old self felt the sting. My bad poetry (and my fictional fetus) would not have a voice.
Some years later found me agonizing over a different dilemma. I was late. It had been my first time, and his first time, and we used protection, clumsily and imperfectly. Ahead was college and a future. I had already picked out a new comforter for my dorm room. I couldn’t imagine being a mother at this point in my life. I did not want to think about abortion, yet was relieved it was there. If I needed to choose, I had the freedom to decide which direction my life would go. A week later, my body chose for me.
It wasn’t until the unwanted pregnancy of a college friend that I saw how our experience and understanding of abortion can be as varied as we are. She told me afterward, how she went to the clinic and had the procedure. We were at a small Catholic university. Even in the 80’s, we didn’t talk about abortion. There was talk about girls who dropped out. Most did not return, and the rare one who did was older, changed and silent about what had altered her. I asked my friend if she was okay. I was ready to be there for her, placing myself in her position, expecting the conflicting slew of emotions: sorrow, guilt, immense relief. But she wasn’t conflicted. There were no regrets. She was sure. Abortion was a safe and legal medical procedure available to her. It wasn’t about a fertilized egg or zygote or embryo. It was about safeguarding her health and her future. And that is what she did.
A marriage, two miscarriages and two kids later, I walked into a downtown bookstore to find myself in the middle of a discussion on the book Three Minus One: Stories of Parents’ Love and Loss. People were sharing their most intimate experience of joy and grief — the taboo tales of miscarriage, stillbirth and sudden infant death. The air was heavy with love-filled heartache as stories eased, ever so slightly, off weighted down shoulders. Every experience was hugely personal, and like every person, utterly unique. A woman stood up to share her story of abortion. She was given space and a respectful audience. She had a right to her own experience, her own story of possibility and loss. In that moment I saw compassion and acceptance. I also saw hope — hope that we can make room for another’s viewpoint and choice — hope we can bridge our abortion divide.
Even among my closest group of friends, abortion remains a subject too uncomfortable to discuss. Opinions are strong and emotions run high. Yet we see closely on so many other issues. “Across race, gender, income, education, generation, and 2020 presidential vote, there is stunning agreement on the long-term national priorities that should come to characterize America”, is the key finding of the American Aspirations Index poll by Populace. These priorities include a “commitment to individual rights”, “high quality healthcare as a necessity”, and “upholding equal treatment for all”.
What if, for most of us, the abortion divide is not as wide as we perceive? Perhaps we just need to start with where we agree.
How to Bridge Our Abortion Divide
There is a way to bridge this seemingly impossible distance and it’s not as far as we think.
Among your group of friends is a person of faith who believes in the sanctity of life. They attend church on Sundays and seek to live with love and purpose. They believe life begins at conception and must be protected. We’ll call them Chris.
In a different place of worship, or down the hall of an office complex, or maybe in the house next door, is another friend. They are also a person of faith, or maybe agnostic or atheist. They cherish the innate value of life, understanding there are different perceptions of where life begins. They are grateful no one can interfere with decisions impacting their physical being. They believe in the unassailable autonomy of one’s own body. They go by Alex.
Both Chris and Alex believe we are all endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in our Declaration of Independence.
Let’s begin here.
Designated “Laws of Nature” in the nearly two and a half centuries old document, these rights are the basis of our “supreme law of the land”, or Constitution. The Declaration of Independence attests the right of the people to institute a government “most likely to effect their safety and happiness”. As did our country’s forefathers, Chris and Alex “hold these truths to be self-evident”. But when it comes to the topic of abortion, for Chris, the focus of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is on the potentially born. For Alex, these protections are for those who are or may become pregnant. And thus we find ourselves on either side of a vast divide, with no way to cross or meet in between.
But there is a way to bridge this seemingly impossible distance and it’s not as far as we think. In fact, it’s only six steps. It begins with Respect the Autonomy of Women*.
Step One: Respect the Autonomy of Women*
We have a history in this country of discounting the autonomy of women.
The title of this article is Six Steps to Bridging Our Abortion Divide, but it could actually be One Step to Bridging Our Abortion Divide, and Respect the Autonomy of Women* is the one step.
Here’s why:
We have a history in this country of discounting the autonomy of women (also why it’s called history). The Declaration of Independence does not mention women, only men. Among the many things the colonists brought to the new world was legal patriarchy in the doctrine of coverture, the shadows of which remain to this day. Upon marriage, a woman’s legal identity was merged with that of her husband. She could not buy or sell property or enter into legal contracts. As an individual, she ceased to exist.
For a white woman, there was at least the possibility of autonomy by choosing not to marry, but an enslaved woman did not have options. She could never own property because she was property. She had no autonomy over her own body and womb. She was raped and forced into pregnancies, her body bearing the physical repercussions associated with pregnancy, miscarriage, labor and delivery. She might not have survived. If she did survive, she could not claim her babies as her own and could do nothing when they were ripped away. A report by the Equal Justice Initiative citing violence against enslaved women, gave this account: “In Missouri in 1855, a young enslaved Black woman named Celia was convicted of murder and hanged for killing a white man who had enslaved and repeatedly raped her. The court rejected her self-defense claim, concluding that enslaved Black women had no right to resist white slaveowners’ sexual advances.”
It took a civil war and a constitutional amendment for Black women to have legal rights to their own bodies, at least on paper. An additional amendment — the Fourteenth Amendment, granted former enslaved people their citizenship and “equal protection of the laws”. The 1875 Civil Rights Act, in an attempt to realize this objective, guaranteed “equality of all men before the law” (again, women were discounted), and ensured all were “entitled to the full and equal enjoyment” of accommodations and facilities. But a ruling by the Supreme Court deemed the act unconstitutional, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect against private acts of discrimination, giving a wide opening for blatant bigotry, predatory practices and abuse.
What followed for a Black woman in the wake of a botched reconstruction was an existence, as far as her bodily autonomy was concerned, not much different than the days of slavery. Author Danielle L. McGuire documented America’s history of terrorizing Black women in her book At the Dark End of the Street: “As Reconstruction collapsed and Jim Crow arose, white men abducted and assaulted Black women with alarming regularity. White men lured black women and girls away from home with promises of steady work and better wages; attacked them on the job; abducted them at gunpoint while traveling to or from home, work, or church; raped them as a form of retribution or to enforce rules of racial and economic hierarchy; sexually humiliated and assaulted them on streetcars and buses, in taxicabs and trains, and in other public spaces. As the acclaimed freedom fighter Fannie Lou Hamer put it, ‘A black woman’s body was never hers alone.’” Black women in America, particularly in the south, were sexually abused with no viable recourse, often at the hands of the authorities themselves. As stated in the Say Her Name African American Policy Forum report, “Historically, the American legal system has not protected Black women from sexual assault, thereby creating opportunities for law enforcement officials to sexually abuse them with the knowledge that they are unlikely to suffer any penalties for their actions.”
It would take nearly 90 more years for a Civil Rights Act to be enacted that would be upheld by the Supreme Court. McGuire writes, “The 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, often heralded as the opening scene of the civil rights movement, was in many ways the last act of a decades-long struggle to protect black women”. Unfortunately, it would prove not to serve as the last act. More than half a century after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Black women are engaged in a never-ending fight for bodily autonomy. RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) reports in June 2020, “Not only do members of the Black community experience higher rates of sexual violence, but they often feel they have few options for seeking justice and help due to a number of widespread institutional and historical factors.” The 2019 Violence Policy Center analysis of homicide data reports, “Overall, black females were murdered by males at a rate (2.55 per 100,000) more than twice as high as white females (1.13 per 100,000).” Bodily harm from authority is also higher. According to a 2020 report by the Washington Post, at the hands of historically biased and overbearing police, “Black women are fatally shot at rates higher than women of other races.” Black women continue to be less safe in America. Since the first slave ship’s arrival in 1619 to the 2020 killing of Breonna Taylor, the lives and autonomy of Black women in America have been disregarded, threatened and extinguished.
Asian women in America also bear a history of oppression and violence. In San Francisco, beginning in the mid-19th century and fueled by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinese girls and women were sold into brothels, where they would spend a few tortured years before succumbing to mental deterioration, disease and death. In her book, The White Devil’s Daughters, author Julia Flynn Siler documents how local officials, benefiting from the slave trade of Asian women, allowed the abuse and violations to continue for nearly a century.
Indigenous women carry their own unique tales of bodily persecution in this country. Their land and livelihood stolen, they were raped, murdered and fallen by the disease of the invaders. “There was a saying among the soldiers of the western frontier, a saying Custer and his officers could heartily endorse,” writes Nathaniel Philbrick in The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn, “‘Indian women rape easy.’” Indigenous mothers additionally suffered the loss of their children at the hands of the government. For more than a hundred years, until the passage of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, Native children were removed by coercion, threat and force. Many were placed into federal boarding schools, with the intent to “kill the Indian, save the man” — a phrase attributed to General Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the first government run Indian boarding school. Within these boarding schools lurked a “shocking level of inhumane physical brutality, sexual abuse and child rape,” writes Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer Ruth Hopkins. “There are even reports of children who were murdered while still newborns, that their families never knew existed. These babies, who died without names, were the product of rape, when priests assaulted girls and impregnated them.” While these schools were still in operation in the 1960’s and 70’s, the Indian Health Service further violated Indigenous women by sterilizing up to 70,000 of them. These horrific transgressions — many performed without consent or knowledge — were “motivated by racist stereotypes and laws that empowered eugenics”, writes Blackfoot/Cherokee Indigenous advocate Mariah Gladstone. She adds that Mexican immigrant women and their descendants were also victims. For three decades, thousands were forcibly sterilized within California institutions until 1950.
But you don’t have to search through history to find accounts of violations against immigrant and Native women. In December of 2020, dozens of women accused a doctor of performing unwanted gynecological procedures, including hysterectomies, at an ICE detention center in Georgia, leading DHS to announce its closure. In the United States, the Global Women’s Institute reports, “immigrant women are vulnerable to abuse by exploitative employers and law enforcement aggressively implementing anti-immigration policies.” The Violence Against Women Act, first passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and 2013, included protections for immigrants as well as Native women. But VAWA and its protections expired in 2019, even as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women movement brought awareness to the staggering numbers. “On some reservations, Indigenous women are murdered at more than ten times the national average,” the Indian Law Resource Center reports. “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence, and more than 1 in 2 have experienced sexual violence.” Compounding and perpetuating the protection inequities, the Center outlines how “United States law creates a discriminatory system for administering justice in Native communities.”
Throughout our nation’s history, women have been fighting for autonomy over their lives and their bodies. Paramount to having autonomy is having a voice, and paramount to having a voice is having the right to vote. It took over 130 years for a subset of women — white women — to gain the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment. But it would be another 45 years before all women — including Black, Asian and Indigenous — would be guaranteed the same access with the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Currently states are enacting laws that may encroach on these rights, prompting voting rights legislation from Congress.) Beyond the vote, the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, which would secure equal access and treatment regardless of sex, finally got its ¾ state ratification in January of 2020, decades beyond the initial seven-year deadline. Today, more than 55 years after the Voting Rights Act, we are still without an Equal Rights Amendment to protect against gender-based discrimination.
The point of this historic journey examining our nation’s treatment of women, is to show that our government has a history of making bad decisions when it comes to their welfare. The herstory of America is a story weighted down by neglect, oppression and subjugation. In recent years, the Me Too movement has highlighted the pervasive magnitude of harassment and assault toward women in our culture. To be female in America, is to constantly negotiate potential threats to bodily safety, livelihood and well-being. As an autonomous, free person of this country, whose fate is most directly impacted, the choices affecting the health and prosperity of a woman are best left to the woman herself.
Now let’s revisit our friend, Chris, who believes the Constitution speaks for the potentially born, at every stage of development. The problem with this assertion, is that the pregnant woman is erased. We’ve all seen the billboards of adorable babies, reminding us to “Choose Life”, but what is completely missing from this picture is the woman. She has also been missing at the table of politicians making decisions about her healthcare. Those who believe as Chris does, “equate the value of a grown woman with that of a zygote,” writes Katha Pollitt, in Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights. You could argue they elevate the zygote above the woman, and because a zygote can’t speak for itself, they would speak for it, making decisions that exclude the woman. A government that places mandates on women’s bodies is a government that does not view women as autonomous citizens capable of making their own choices.
Alex, on the other hand, would argue government does not have the right to interfere with women’s autonomy. There are no laws requiring parents to donate life-saving blood to their children. Why then, must a woman donate her body to an unwanted pregnancy? Chris will remind us there are families willing to adopt. In response, Rachel Cain in her popular TikTok post, offered, “Adoption is the answer to someone who doesn’t want to be a parent. Abortion is the answer for someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant for 9 months, give birth, hopefully live through that, so they can experience 70 more years of the effects of that.” Adoption, as a solution, doesn’t acknowledge women at all. “To force women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will is to deprive them of the right to make basic decisions about their lives and well-being, and to give that power to the state,” writes author Katha Pollitt. “Moreover, the logic of the anti-abortion movement makes all pregnant women less than full citizens, including those who want to have a baby, because it places the supposed interests of the fetus ahead of the woman’s own interests and deprives her of rights granted to everyone else: to make one’s own medical decisions and to receive equal treatment under the law.”
Who should have jurisdiction over a woman’s body and its abilities if not the woman herself?
Chris will say the potentially born should have a voice. If so, how would that take place? Who has the authority to override the woman and who are they really speaking for? Before Roe v. Wade, some hospitals had committees, corroborating with physicians, psychiatrists and law enforcement to determine, in their view, if a woman was eligible for an abortion. Should we reestablish the hospital abortion committees? Would they have the right to decide whether or not a woman was raped? Would they determine if she was too promiscuous? Too careless? Too drunk? What would give them the authority to tell a descendant of enslaved women forced to bear children, that she too must bear children against her will? With its horrific record in the treatment of Native people, could an Indigenous woman trust a government-mandated committee to care about her well-being?
The right to an abortion, Justice Ginsburg said at her 1993 nomination hearing, is “central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when Government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.” As full, autonomous persons of the United States, the government cannot interfere with pregnant people making decisions “most likely to effect their safety and happiness”, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. This is why bridging the abortion divide needs only one step, and that is to respect the autonomy of women*.
Having established the full autonomy and fundamental rights of pregnant persons, at what point should the autonomy of a fetus be recognized? To answer this, we examine viability in the next plank of our bridge: Adhere to Science.
Step Two: Adhere to Science
Laws cannot alter scientific conclusions.
“Until the 1860’s and 1870’s, most states allowed abortion before quickening, the point at which fetal movement could be detected,” writes Mary Ziegler in Abortion and the Law in America. Initial fetal movement detection varies per person and pregnancy, but is usually between the 16th and 22nd week. Later, as the American Medical Association strove to eliminate abortifacient drugs and gain authority, states began enacting abortion restrictions both before and after “quickening”. By the 1960’s, 44 states outlawed abortion in nearly all circumstances. That would change in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
The Roe v Wade decision protected “a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy” and said the state “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.” These “compelling points” were based on trimesters. “Prior to approximately the end of the first trimester”, government intervention was disallowed. “The stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester” (second trimester), state regulation was permitted in “promoting its interest in the health” of the pregnant person. “For the stage subsequent to viability” (third trimester), state bans and restrictions were permitted “in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life” with exceptions “for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
If the trimester guidelines and language seem awkward, it’s because they are. Differing ideas of where trimesters begin and end added to the ambiguity as did variables in pregnancy development. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized this when she wrote, “There is simply no justification in Constitutional theory for having a different standard or test for the different trimesters. Seems it puts us in the business of being a science review board.” Using terms like “quickening” and “compelling points” within “trimesters”, our courts had been seeking to refer to the moment when a fetus could survive outside the womb as its own autonomous being: the point of viability. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey ruling, “viability” was the determining factor for state restrictions on abortion. Government obstruction in the “path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” was deemed unconstitutional.
So when is a fetus viable?
It is probably easier to answer the question: When is a fetus not viable?
The latest CDC report on Abortion Surveillance shows that more than ¾ of all abortions were performed very early in pregnancy — at nine weeks or less. The vast majority, over 92%, occurred by week thirteen, and just under 7% happened during weeks 14–20. All of these procedures, consisting of 99% of abortions, were inarguably before fetal viability.
Roe v Wade states “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” Recognizing continuing advances in medical science, Justice O’Connor wrote in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983) that Roe’s original trimester framework was “clearly on a collision course with itself.” A recent report by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists gave rates of survival of 23–27% at 23 weeks, but little chance of survival prior to 23 weeks gestation.
Supplied with the latest scientific statistics, it becomes clear that women are seeking abortions during the period before a fetus is viable. Although there is a recent slew of state laws banning abortions at early points of fetal development, such as the currently reinstated Texas “heartbeat bill”, these laws cannot alter scientific conclusions on fetal viability.
For the 1% of abortions performed after the 20th week, these include health issues for those pregnant and severe abnormalities of the fetus — a decision best left with the pregnant woman and her health care provider. In these extreme situations, when is it the place for Chris or the government to intrude? And would they be prepared to provide comprehensive alternatives which support all impacted parties? Contributing to the number of later abortions is poor access to abortion facilities and proper healthcare, which are both side effects of restrictive abortion laws that infringe upon the rights of pregnant people (See Step Four: Do Not Infringe Upon the Rights of Others).
In adhering to science, abortion should be a safeguarded right in regards to a pregnant person’s autonomy, up to the moment of fetal viability. Alex may argue laws do not go far enough to safeguard the autonomy and well-being of those who are pregnant. On the other hand, as fetal viability shifts with medical advances, Chris may seek to recognize earlier fetal autonomy. But the argument that a nonviable zygote, embryo or fetus has autonomous “personhood”, which deems it equal to or greater than the pregnant person, disregards science. Those who claim this as their faith are free to do so, but must not impose their beliefs on science or the law. Which brings us to our next step: Uphold the Separation of Church and State.
Step Three: Uphold the Separation of Church and State
Our constitution rejects laws that embrace an “established” religion that would override and repress all others.
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” Roe v. Wade concluded. “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
In a country of over 300 million people, there will be — and should be — a variety of viewpoints concerning the origin of life. Chris and Alex may refer to their beliefs and/or religion to support their views on abortion, but hundreds of religions are practiced in the United States and our constitution rejects laws that embrace an “established” religion that would override and repress all others, including those who do not practice.
Our government’s founding principal of separation between church and state is grounded in the First Amendment of our constitution and is known as the Establishment Clause. Defined by Jefferson as “building a wall of separation between Church and State”, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Chris may argue that legalized abortion “prohibits the free exercise” of their religion because it violates their belief that life begins at conception. It does not. If faced with the choice, Chris has the same rights as every other pregnant person to bring a pregnancy to term. They can live out their beliefs. They can testify about their beliefs. They cannot, however, force their choice and beliefs onto others.
In 1976, anti-abortion congressman Henry J. Hyde proclaimed, “I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill.” He introduced an amendment to the federal budget which banned funding of all abortions. Abortion and the Law in America details the efforts of the religiously backed National Right to Life Committee to install, uphold and expand the Hyde Amendment. Although it faced severe opposition and court battles, it became and remains law. The current version includes exceptions for saving a pregnant person’s life and in cases of rape or incest. The NRLC’s success in blocking federal funds for a medical service is unique. There will always be moral and religious opposition to some tax supported programs and practices, such as capital punishment, incarceration for certain crimes, and military spending. Yet despite opposition, there are no special amendments to release the tax payer from these obligations and absolve them of participation.
Except in the case of abortion.
The right to an abortion — a procedure requested only by those whose autonomy has been historically disregarded in our country — has been uniquely targeted. There are no examples of federal funding bans on medical procedures for cisgender males. This makes the Hyde Amendment blatantly discriminatory, and why we need step four: Do not Infringe upon the Rights of Others.
Step Four: Do not Infringe upon the Rights of Others
What’s at stake is the fate of all who are or may become pregnant, and they are being dealt a shockingly uneven hand.
While campaigning, former president Trump promised to select supreme court justices who would “be pro-life and we’ll see about overturning” Roe v. Wade. In a 2016 interview with Breitbart, he promised conservative judges, all picked by the Federalist Society. Prominent Federalist Society leader, Leonard Leo, described as “dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn Roe v Wade”, has been instrumental in the nominations of five supreme court justices, including the three appointed by Trump. Now several states, pushed by politically powerful and religiously backed organizations, are racing to test a conceivably weighted SCOTUS. First out of the gate was Texas. By the simple act of not acting, SCOTUS gave the nod for the state to enact the most restrictive abortion law in the nation. Next up is Mississippi’s anti-abortion law, which bans abortions at 15 weeks — several weeks before fetal viability. The court has agreed to hear arguments in the coming months.
Implementation of these state laws violate the rights of pregnant persons and those who may become pregnant, doing the most harm to minorities and those living in poverty. To better understand how abortion restriction infringes on rights, we take a look at three categories: Violation of Civil Rights, Violation of Healthcare Rights and Race, Gender and Socioeconomic Discrimination.
Violation of Civil Rights
In her book, The Choice: The Abortion Divide in America, author Danielle D’Souza Gill claims “the abortion industry” is “blinding women and influencing them to do things that they would not otherwise do”. In the chapter “Are Women People?” in Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, Pollitt describes this reasoning as “a paternalistic view of the woman as gullible, impulsive, and childlike. She’s coerced by others, is too upset to think straight, doesn’t understand what’s at stake — but because abortion violates her essential nature as a woman, her mental and emotional health will suffer”. In short, abortion opponents believe a woman must be saved from herself, because she is not capable of operating in her best interest.
In April of 2021, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld this view by giving a pass to providers who withhold information until after an abortion was feasible. Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Virginia have genetic counseling conscience clause laws, whereby healthcare professionals can refuse to participate in abortion counseling. Some states are using federal welfare grants to fund anti-abortion clinics known as pregnancy crisis centers. Deb Lavender, a former Missouri representative seeking to end government funding of these centers, observed, “the concern is that they lie to women.” This growing surge of laws and practices are denying pregnant people critical health information and resources essential to making informed decisions about their well-being and futures. It is also an irrefutable assault on civil rights because it does not recognize them as full humans, able to make their own choices.
The herstory of America is one that considers a woman to be less than. She is less than a whole citizen, qualified to make complex decisions concerning her life and her body. Although abortion was legalized in 1973, some states required husbands to be notified until a 1992 Supreme Court decision. A woman is less than a zygote, embryo or fetus. After enduring devastating and debilitating pregnancy traumas, women are erased and vilified in the name of the “unborn”. In 2007, after suffering a stillbirth, a Mississippi teen was indicted for murder. A fall down the stairs in 2010 got pregnant Christine Taylor arrested for feticide. Marshae Jones, who in 2018, miscarried after being shot in the stomach, was indicted on felony manslaughter. “The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,” said police lieutenant Danny Reid, apparently unconcerned about the fate of the wounded Jones. Fetal assault laws codify pregnant women’s rights as less than others and are opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as establishing “a form of criminal liability that applies only to pregnant people” and serves to discourage them from seeking resources and healthcare.
For Americans concerned about an overstepping government, laws that criminalize abortions and interfere in women’s healthcare should be a blaring siren. “If you’re like most Americans, you’re not at all sure you want the government making intimate decisions for women, especially in extreme circumstances like these,” writes Katha Pollitt. “Fear of government overreach is one of the most important reasons why even Americans morally opposed to abortion don’t support strict abortion bans.” On September first, the state of Texas authorized ordinary citizens to became vigilantes against anyone “aiding or abetting” an abortion. Open season was declared on the civil rights of healthcare workers and providers, patient family and friends, rape counselors and volunteers. An unheeded letter signed by 200 doctors to the Texas House of Representatives pleaded, “As licensed physicians in Texas, we implore you to not weaponize the judicial branch against us”.
The landmark Roe v. Wade decision was based on the right to privacy, which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reproductive choices are “deeply private and personal, and should be made only by the pregnant person”, wrote Representative Pramila Jayapal, adding it is the role of elected officials to “commit to preserving the constitutionally protected right of others to choose.” Yet the fallout from not protecting this right is so much more perilous than a threat to privacy. The widening ripple effect of these anti-abortion laws endanger the rights and well-being of an entire support system. And for those who may become pregnant, it is a direct assault on their future, their freedom, their health and potentially, their very lives.
Violation of Healthcare Rights
Reproductive health, which includes birth control, pregnancy and childbirth, is inextricably linked to physical, mental and emotional wellness. Pregnancy and childbirth have a direct and permanent impact on a woman’s body and health. Abortion services, therefore, must be an essential and accessible component of healthcare.
The callus way states are pursuing an end to abortion rights belittles women who lost their lives during childbirth. Our nation’s history is riddled with their stories. Modern advances have helped make labor and delivery relatively safe, yet the upward trend of maternal mortality in the United States should be cause for alarm. No laws targeting cisgender males increase their mortality risk by a rate of fourteen. “The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion”. This is the conclusion by a study published in 2012 by Obstetrics & Gynecology, based on a mortality rate of 8.8 per 100,000 live births in the United States. Later statistics have put the risk considerably higher. A 2019 report by World Health Organization showed the risk of maternal mortality had more than doubled. The United States ranked behind 55 other nations, losing 19 lives per 100,000 live births. During the last years of this study, the mortality rate was 0.44 per 100,000 reported abortions. These recent numbers place the mortality rate for women in childbirth at a stunning 43 times higher than with abortion.
Once a woman survives delivery, the health risks are not over. In a PBS News Hour article, gynecologist and author of The Vagina Bible, Dr. Jen Gunter, cites a laundry list of post pregnancy complications, which include pain after sex, incontinence, pain at incision sites, blood pressure spikes, blood clots and hemorrhage, fluctuating hormones, lower back pain, abdominal muscle separation and postpartum depression. A new mother may have one or a combination of any of these at the same time she is struggling to care for a newborn. “The U.S. health care system is squarely focused on the helpless newborn rather than the person who until very recently was carrying that newborn in their body,” the article continues, which “echoes a long history of women’s pain being downplayed or ignored.” In America, a woman’s well-being is considered last — after the health of her newborn. Some would even place her well-being behind that of an embryo.
For those seeking abortions, the longer they are forced to remain pregnant, the higher the risk. Since legalization, abortion providers have opposed politically motivated regulations with varying success. The recent reconfiguration of SCOTUS has supercharged abortion opponents and encouraged a flood of new policies with broad and crippling effects. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “more abortion restrictions — 90 — have already been enacted in 2021 than in any year since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973”. When policies delay and inhibit abortion through compulsory waiting periods, extra appointments, groundless procedures and forced clinic closures, not to mention the physical and emotional violations of mandatory ultrasounds and “counseling”, patients are harmed. Politicians can choose to end safe abortions, but abortions will continue. What will increase is needless trauma, infections and death. A December 2020 report already warns: “abortion clinics and practitioners report caring for an increasing number of individuals who have attempted self-managed abortions.”
Government interference and misinformation concerning abortion is an assault on women’s health. In a case of federal obstruction, access to abortion pills was severely limited for over two decades. When COVID-19 lead to a temporary loosening of restrictions, the ACOG responded, “We are pleased to see mifepristone regulated on the basis of the scientific evidence during the pandemic, rather than political bias against comprehensive reproductive health care.” In 2007, the Supreme Court struck down the contested intact dilation and extraction procedure. In the deciding opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort.” (In fact, the vast majority — over 95% — do not regret their choice.) The court’s decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,” Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. “The Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.” New York’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act, allowing abortions after 24 weeks in the “absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health”, became fodder for a misinformation campaign. Social media posts falsely claimed women would abort healthy babies minutes before birth, fueling anti-abortion alarm. More alarming, is that some would deny the essential care of a later abortion in situations that are traumatic, complex and potentially life-threatening.
Wherever misinformation and politics are guiding healthcare decisions for pregnant people, their well-being is compromised. Obstetrician-gynecologist Jen Villavicencio offers, “One of the things I’m concerned in all the rhetoric is that we’re missing compassion and empathy for that patient and what she’s going through.” Compassionate care must be available for victims of incest and rape, young adolescents, and those suffering from addiction. No rape victim should be further traumatized by the physical and psychological burden of carrying a pregnancy to term against their will. Pregnant young teens are also high risk. Young adolescents (ages 10–14) suffer a higher rate of complications and death according to the 2019 World Health Organization report on Maternal Mortality. Refusing these teens access to abortion endangers them, which is tantamount to child abuse. For those who are pregnant and addicted, being denied an abortion not only jeopardizes their health, it puts them in danger of being criminalized by laws created or interpreted to specifically target them.
A woman’s health and security require pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood be a choice. To protect women and “avoid maternal deaths, it is also vital to prevent unwanted pregnancies,” concludes the World Health Organization. “All women, including adolescents, need access to contraception, safe abortion services to the full extent of the law, and quality post-abortion care.” The monumental undertaking of giving one’s body to the task of growing, nurturing and giving birth must always be up to the woman. To do otherwise, is to hijack control of another’s welfare, and possibly their very survival. The biological and emotional health effects caused by the weeks and months of pregnancy, during labor and delivery, and afterward (both temporary and permanent) must not be forced upon any individual.
Race, Gender and Socioeconomic Discrimination
Without specific federal laws protecting reproductive healthcare, interpretation is in the hands of a shifting court, creating a system where rights are wrenched away, reinstated, and yanked again, based on the political moment. What’s at stake is the fate of all who are or may become pregnant, and they are being dealt a shockingly uneven hand.
Denied abortion services, the CDC reports Black and Indigenous women will face a morbid maternity rate that is 2–3 times higher (4–5 times higher in those over 30) than white women. “Sadly, pregnancy has become a death sentence for many in the very places that make reproductive health care access the most fraught and hard to reach,” writes Chancellor’s Professor of Law, Michele Goodwin, in her article The Racist History of Abortion and Midwifery Bans. “Many of these states (though not all) are former slave states”. Structural and interpersonal racism in America are “fundamental causes of health inequities, health disparities and disease” according to the CDC. Outcomes of this racial discrepancy were documented in the CDC 2015 Health Report, With Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Among the Black community, abortion may be “the only choice available due to a lack of affordable contraception, lack of reliable and affordable and non-racist healthcare, lack of employment and education opportunities, lack of financial stability, lack of safety and support”, posts Ijeoma Oluo, author of So You Want to Talk About Race. “Abortion only represents freedom to those who can choose it freely. You cannot choose it freely when it is the only option you have.” With safe abortions off the table, the choice grows even starker.
Women and girls are not the only people seeking abortions. A 2019 Rutgers study estimated up to 30% of transgender men have unplanned pregnancies, reporting, “Transgender men who become pregnant are at increased risk for depression and difficulty getting medical care due to a lack of knowledge among health care providers”. A report released by the National Center for Transgender Equality found 33% had experienced mistreatment within the healthcare system. The study also revealed the risk of suicide to be an ominous nine times higher for transgender people, a risk that can worsen with the physical changes, emotional stress and body dysphoria of pregnancy.
As abortion clinics close in many states across the country, the burden on the financially insecure is untenable. In the aftermath of the Texas ban, Kawanna Shannon, a director at Planned Parenthood, shared the story of a woman forced to spend her rent money on childcare and transportation in order to travel twelve hours to obtain a safe abortion. In 2015, Justice Ginsburg denounced the “sorry situation” of women’s choice in America. “If you can afford a plane ticket, a train ticket or even a bus ticket you can control your own destiny, but if you’re locked into your native state then maybe you can’t. That we have one law for women of means and another for poor women is not a satisfactory situation.” Today the inequity is even starker. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research review of The Economic Effects of Abortion Access concluded, “More equitable access to abortion care allows women to exercise greater agency over their body and their childbearing. This, in turn, enhances their ability to invest in their own human capital and improve their economic well-being. Conversely, restrictions on abortion access have the potential to harm women — and later generations — rather than help them.”
By supporting restrictive abortion laws, Chris is ultimately supporting inequity. Reproductive healthcare, including abortion, should be available to all, no matter who they are, where they live, or what’s in their bank account. Our inalienable rights as citizens should be enough to end the debate on safe and legal abortion. And yet the political divide is as wide as ever, with new restrictive state laws in the news every day.
There will always be those who believe they can oppress and use others in order to gain or maintain power and they are using our divide to their advantage. This is why we must take the next step together: Recognize and Resist Exploitation.
Step Five: Recognize and Resist Exploitation
“I was the big fish.”
“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say,” Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, revealed in the documentary AKA Jane Roe, referring to her work with anti-abortion groups. A survivor of an abusive childhood, she had learned people were not to be trusted and how to play the game. But one could argue McCorvey was also used by abortion advocates, when they pushed her case through the courts for a game-changing victory. McCorvey, herself, never obtained the abortion she sought.
For decades, Americans have understood abortion within a political context: identify as liberal and you are “pro-choice”, side with conservatives and you are “pro-life”. The 2020 Democratic Party Platform affirms, “We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.” The Republican Party Platform states, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.” (No exceptions are mentioned in the cases of incest or rape or to protect the health and lives of those pregnant.) But there was not always this political divide over abortion. In a 1972 Gallup Poll, the majority of every category surveyed, including evangelical Christians and Catholics, agreed: “The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.”
In the years surrounding the Roe v. Wade decision, Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist, sought to harness the voting power of evangelicals. “The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” He saw his opportunity in the abortion issue.
At the time, evangelicals “were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a ‘Catholic issue,’” writes historian Randall Balmer. But during the 1978 election year, “Correspondence between Weyrich and evangelical leaders fairly crackles with excitement” as the religious right organized and strengthened behind the cause. By building a base self-identifying as the “moral majority”, they could pursue an agenda to relieve regulation and taxation. According to Balmer’s book, Thy Kingdom Come, Weyrich admitted the “Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision.” The catalyst, in fact, was backlash to government intervention in the racially discriminatory policies of Christian schools.
Those sharing Chris’s beliefs about abortion are being exploited by those who are using them to gain power. Ultimately, women’s bodies are being exploited to pave the way for limited government. In the abortion rights fight, both sides are being played, which means everyone loses.
So how do we safeguard against exploitation? To do this, we must return to the beginning — to our Declaration of Independence and the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the unalienable rights guaranteed for all — not just for some — and the foundation of our final step.
Step Six: Protect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for All
“It’s not just her body, but her whole life trajectory”
Missing from the anti-abortion decision matrix is the one who carries the pregnancy. They are a person with a life and responsibilities, dreams and burdens, triumphs and scars. They are worthy of protection and they alone (see Step One: Respect the Autonomy of Women*) have the right to make decisions about their body and their future.
Some states are imposing restrictions with the argument abortion harms women. This is a false premise. The results of a ten-year study, comparing the long term effects for obtaining an abortion verses being turned away, found no negative consequences for those who received one. The overwhelming majority — 95% — reported it had been the right decision. The Turnaway Study examined mental and physical health, partners and children, and economic factors. For 40% of participants, finances were a major issue in their decision making. Most — 60% — were already mothers, wanting to best care for the children they had. Diana Greene Foster, the principal investigator concluded, “It’s not just her body, but her whole life trajectory, her chance of having a wanted baby later, her chance of having a good, positive romantic relationship and her chance of supporting herself and her family. It affects their existing children and the well-being of her future children.”
In other words, bodily autonomy is paramount to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is our birthright, recognized by both Chris and Alex. Step six, our last step, is protecting this right for all, and why we must secure safe, accessible abortion, as part of women’s reproductive healthcare.
Bridging Our Divide
Respect each other’s beliefs while respecting each other’s autonomous rights.
Your rights end where mine begin is a phrase reportedly derived from the original: Your right to swing your arm ends just where the other man’s nose begins. We have walked these six steps together: respect the autonomy of women*, adhere to science, uphold the separation of church and state, do not infringe upon the rights of others, recognize and resist exploitation, and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. Nowhere in our journey have we been required to abandon our beliefs on where life begins. But while Chris can wave an anti-abortion sign, they cannot swing it into another’s nose. And they certainly can’t regulate another’s uterus.
Bridging our divide does not mean we agree on esoteric questions, nor should it. Bridging our divide means we respect each other’s beliefs while respecting each other’s autonomous rights. Unifying on this basic concept makes us stronger, protects us from exploitation and allows us to work with rather than against each other. Every day, women embrace the monumental endeavor to carry, deliver and raise babies. We should celebrate and support them. We must give them the tools and environment to succeed. Now that we’ve crossed the divide, let’s explore how to move forward together.
Moving Forward Together
Build the foundation for families not only to survive, but to thrive.
“As I looked at what was effective in nations around the world, I discovered something surprising,” wrote Rev. Bryan Berghoef, “the nations with the lowest abortion rates in the world were the ones who took care of their citizens by providing affordable and accessible healthcare, making pre- and post-natal care available, having affordable childcare, investing in good education and having jobs that pay family-supporting wages. They also make birth control widely accessible. Even though abortion is legal in these countries, they regularly see a drop in the number of abortions that happen.”
Safeguarding the rights of all means safe and accessible abortions are part of comprehensive reproductive care. But if we want to reduce the need for abortions there is much we can do. We must stop demonizing and policing women for their own choices and start building a mother and child supportive environment. The Turnaway Study determined a host of reasons for seeking an abortion, but the one most cited (usually in combination with other reasons) was affordability. A disproportionate number of those seeking abortion are low income. If we want to empower potential mothers, we need affordable child-care and healthcare, including convenient and accessible contraception, and a living wage for parents. But we can’t stop there. We need to support a healthy work/life balance to sustain our families. A society that is pro-people is also one that is pro-education and works to end climate change. This is the broader view of reproductive justice envisioned by SisterSong — to build the foundation for families not only to survive, but to thrive, in safe and sustainable communities.
The vision of reproductive justice is one we can all strive for, where the rights and well-being of every child and every family are upheld and advanced. We can each choose our path toward this unified goal, working together to make a difference and to move forward.
A better world is waiting.
*Although the majority affected are women, the arguments within this article apply to all people who may become pregnant.
