Roe v. Wade
Liz Byrd
Roe v. Wade was a controversial court case in 1973 that dealt with the regulation of abortion. According to Alex McBride, “The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus in only the third trimester” (2006). This court ruling was put into place to overall protect both the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, but when rendered necessary an abortion could be carried out if a concern arose for the health and safety of the mother. McBride states, “The Court argued that the Constitution’s First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s ‘zone of privacy’ against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this ‘zone of privacy’” (2006). In the court case Mr. Justice Blackmun stated, “[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgments upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States” (1973).
This court case took place 44 years ago, but fast-forward to 2017, and the United States is once again divided and in an uproar over the passing of The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. According to this bill, it will be “a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more. A violator is subject to criminal penalties — a fine, up to five years in prison, or both” (Congress 2017). According to Congress, “The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements” (2017).The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act passed the House and has been received and read by the Senate, but no further action has happened.
Alison Kodjak of NPR covered the recent Trump ruling in which employers may not have to cover birth control under the employee healthcare. Kodjak states, “According to senior officials with the Department of Health and Human Services, the goal of the new rule is to allow any company or nonprofit group to exclude the coverage for contraception if it has a religious or moral objection” (2017). If Trump’s new ruling is approved any employer with a moral or religious objection to contraception has the right to refuse coverage of birth control to women in the workplace. Kodjak states, “The American Civil Liberties Union sued The Trump Administration within hours of the rule being published, claiming it violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which ensures that all people receive equal protection under the law” (2017). This rule has many people upset and searching for ways to strike it down. What does this mean for businesses and women? Businesses with any religious or moral objection will not have to cover the costs of birth control, and women will be left to pay the costs of their birth control on their own. According to Kodjak, “A one-month supply of birth control pills can cost anywhere from $4 to $55 or more” (2017). Depending on the financial situation, this cost adds up quickly for women who work for companies that are no longer required to cover the costs of birth control in their healthcare plans.
These tweets by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood praise birth control for a lower percentage in both adult and teenage pregnancies, and a lower rate of abortions. Richards also tweeted about how birth control has helped women graduate, and lead amazing roles with their lives that might not have been possible due to their social status, race, or factors of teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school, etc. of where they live.
The author of this tweet argues that women’s issues are economic issues, and that both children and the denial of birth control by healthcare are costly. In reality, if birth control is covered by health care or is sold at an affordable cost, women having access to birth control is more affordable than having children if a woman is not yet to that stage in her life or would prefer to not have children.
Sources:
“H.R.36.- Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”
“Trump Guts Requirement That Employer Health Plans Pay For Birth Control”
“Roe v. Wade (1973)”
“Women’s. Issues. Are. Economic. Issues. Having Children Costs Money. Allowing People to Deny Us Birth Control Coverage Costs Us Money”
“Roe v. Wade”
