The Supreme Court Is Re-evaluating America’s Stance on Abortion, and You Should Too.
“I am an evangelical, pro-life, registered Republican who believes Roe v Wade doesn’t need to be overturned in an effort to decrease abortions.” (Shrader) Rebecca Shrader, an OB sonographer, Christian, and mother, first shared this statement in a post on her blog in 2018. After suffering two miscarriages, her original viewpoint of abortion as morally wrong shifted. In an interview with The Atlantic about her change of opinion, Shrader said, “Rebecca understood why Jen chose to have an abortion — and believed she should have the right to do it. This idea would have been unthinkable to her only a few years earlier” (Green). Although Shrader’s journey of acceptance occurred prior to the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, her story has never been more relevant. As America approaches the 50th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade case, the decision in favor of Roe has never been in more jeopardy. To discuss the crumbling favor of abortion rights for women in the United States, we must first look at how they were achieved almost half of a century ago.
In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used by plaintiff Norma McCorvey to protect her identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the District Attorney of Dallas, Texas. In 1969, McCorvey had become pregnant with her third child and desired an abortion. However, this request was not possible due to the law against abortion in Texas, where she lived at the time, that “proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life” (Roe v. Wade). McCorvey’s reasoning for abortion did not align with this law, but she was approached by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee to serve as their plaintiff in their abortion litigation. In this case, defendant Henry Wade represented the State of Texas as Weddington and Coffee, on behalf of McCorvey, mounted a constitutional challenge to the Texas law that prohibited abortions. On June 17, 1970, 15 days after McCorvey gave birth to the child she desired an abortion for, the three judges assigned to the case ruled in McCorvey’s favor. They declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. However, they did not grant an injunction against enforcing the abortion law. Wade vowed to continue prosecuting those who sought out abortions. The court ruling resulted in both sides appealing, and the case went on to the Supreme Court. Three years later, on January 23, 1973, the Supreme Court voted 7–2 in favor of Roe. The decision stated that the Texas ban on abortions was unconstitutional, and women should be granted the right to an abortion without excessive interference.
Almost 50 years later, America is facing a reckoning regarding abortion rights. Emerging in the 1990s, access to abortion has gotten increasingly difficult due to legislation. Certain Christian groups, such as Summit Church that Shrader was a member of, rejuvenated and radicalized the anti-abortion movement throughout the late 20th century and into the 21st. As pressure has mounted and individual states began to pass laws regarding abortion over the past decade, the decision of Roe v. Wade has come under question. In early May of this year, a draft regarding the Supreme Court overturning the ruling of Roe v. Wade was leaked. In this draft, justice Samuel Alito, with the concurrence of at least four other conservative members of the Supreme Court, writes, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled…The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” (Mangan). This draft attacks the foundation of Roe’s argument. The draft goes on to state that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” (Mangan). If the Supreme Court rectifies Alito’s draft, individual states will be able to restrict how and when women terminate their pregnancy, with no federal court interference.
While the leak has been verified by the Supreme Court as a valid draft, this does not mean it will be the final verdict on the case. However, this does not negate the impact within the draft regarding the horrifying and dehumanizing reasons behind the repeal. In this opinion, Alito cites a lack of viable babies for adoption in the U.S. as a reason for the repeal. His source states that “the domestic supply of infants…available to adopt had become virtually non-existent” (Dobbs v. Jackson). If one can overlook this implication that the only adoptable babies are those born in the U.S., his argument remains controversial and demeaning.
He leans on outdated laws and scholars, such as “Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like — legal scholars who claimed that women had no independent existence apart from their husbands and fathers, were property, and could lawfully be subjected to physical punishment and even rape by their husband” (Goodwin).”
Despite the many flaws in Alito’s draft, anti-abortionists have been emboldened in their fight against abortion due to this leak.
Laws attacking abortion have already been introduced. Notably, Bryan Hughes, a member of the Texas Senate, proposed the Texas Heartbeat Act in March of 2021. This bill was created “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit abortion in cases where a fetal heartbeat is detectable” (Texas Heartbeat Act, 2021). In a regression from the Roe v. Wade decision, unless the mother’s life is in danger, a woman in Texas cannot legally get an abortion. This law, enacted on May 19, 2021, also allows a person “to sue someone who performs or induces an abortion, or aids and abets one, once “cardiac activity” in an embryo can be detected…” (“Texas Heartbeat Act”). Those at risk of being named as a defendant cannot include the patient who got an abortion. However, any person, including but not limited to a nurse, lawyer, counselor, or even an Uber driver, that provides support for the abortion patient may be sued in addition to the physician that performed the abortion. The Texas Heartbeat Act has started a witch-hunt for those seeking an abortion and those who help them. Access to abortion services has become restricted due to this law and the fear it incites. Allowing women to have bodily autonomy should not be such a divisive issue. However, unnecessary lines have been drawn, splitting our country into those who are “pro-life” and those who are “pro-choice.”
When someone identifies as “pro-choice,” many people who oppose abortion think that this stance is synonymous with being “anti-life.” This is not the case at all. People who are “pro-choice” simply advocate for a woman to have the option to terminate a pregnancy that she does not want to carry out. The reasons may be related to financial constraints. According to a New York Times article published in December of 2021, “About half of women who had an abortion in 2014 were below the poverty line, with another quarter very close to poverty” (Sanger-katz, Margot, et al.). Additionally, a research study published in 2017 by the National Library of Medicine found that “The most frequently cited reasons [for abortion] were lack of financial preparedness (56%) … and interference with future opportunities (54%.” (Chae, et al.). The women getting abortions are not undertaking this procedure superfluously. Before an abortion, the patient must give informed consent. Informed consent states that “Patients must possess the capacity to make decisions about their care; their participation in these decisions must be voluntary; and they must be provided adequate and appropriate information” (Counseling). The infrastructure of the U.S. does not support mothers, but it is particularly strenuous on working, single, and uneducated mothers. If a woman can barely care for herself in America today, how can our country expect her to care for a child?
On the other hand, those who identify themselves as “pro-life” fail to protect life. One argument that is mentioned in the leaked draft states, “Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that… safe haven laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home” (Dobbs v. Jackson). The attitude towards pregnant women, regardless of their marital or socioeconomic status, has generally changed to be more receptive than in the 1970s; it is undeniable that women have more rights today than they did when Roe v. Wade was first decided. Maternity leave, federal and state laws banning discrimination based on pregnancy, and the aforementioned safe haven laws are just some of the many steps the country has taken to make pregnancy an easier journey. However, these changes are not comprehensive enough. As of September 30, 2020, 216,838 children entered foster care in the United States. As of September 30, 2020, only 57,881 of those children were adopted through the public welfare agency (AFCARS Report). This data directly refutes the statement that “a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home”(Dobbs v. Jackson). While it’s clear that pregnant women are far better off in today’s society than they were 50 years ago, the advancements made cannot justify the reversal of a crucial court case that protects abortion rights.
The CDC Abortion Surveillance shows that in 2019, 625,346 abortions were reported. This works out to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15–44 years old). In addition, from 2010 to 2019 the number of reported abortions decreased by 18%. While many who speak out against abortion reference “late-term abortions” — abortions performed after 21 weeks –, these abortions make up less than 0.1% of total abortions performed based on gestational age (Kortsmit, et al.). Due to increased methods of contraception, total reported abortion rates have dramatically decreased since Roe v. Wade. For both “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” this is an encouraging trend. The possible reversal of the federal protection for a woman to choose to have an abortion that Roe v. Wade affords could drastically change this, though. In striking down Roe v. Wade, certain types of birth control may also be affected. Dr. Kavita Arora, chair of the ethics committee at the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, discussed this possible side-effect and said, “In changing definition of when pregnancy starts to just at fertilization, it would compromise our ability to provide access to really highly effective methods of contraception such as the copper IUD” (McCammon).
The CDC Abortion Surveillance shows that in 2019, 625,346 abortions were reported. This works out to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15–44 years old). In addition, from 2010 to 2019 the number of reported abortions decreased by 18%. While many who speak out against abortion reference “late-term abortions” — abortions performed after 21 weeks –, these abortions make up less than 0.1% of total abortions performed based on gestational age (Kortsmit, et al.). Due to increased methods of contraception, total reported abortion rates have dramatically decreased since Roe v. Wade. For both “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” this is an encouraging trend. The possible reversal of the federal protection for a woman to choose to have an abortion that Roe v. Wade affords could drastically change this, though. In striking down Roe v. Wade, certain types of birth control may also be affected. Dr. Kavita Arora, chair of the ethics committee at the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, discussed this possible side-effect and said, “In changing definition of when pregnancy starts to just at fertilization, it would compromise our ability to provide access to really highly effective methods of contraception such as the copper IUD” (McCammon).
In a country so concerned with personal freedom, why are so many citizens willing to strip women of it? In an analysis posted by the Guttmacher Institute, “Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45…” (Abortion Is a Common Experience). Those who haven’t had an abortion more than likely know someone who has. After the Supreme Court leak, countless women spoke out about their experience of abortion in protest. Popular indie artist Phoebe Bridgers wrote on Twitter, “I had an abortion in October of last year while I was on tour. I went to planned parenthood… It was easy. Everyone deserves that kind of access” (@phoebe_bridgers). Her confession, and the confessions of many other prominent women such as Stevie Nicks, are crucial in de-stigmatizing the talk of abortion and urging others to fight for abortion rights. For many, it’s easy to gloss over the mounting restrictions on women’s bodies, but it is crucial that everyone, even non-women, pay attention.
Loss of abortion rights can lead to the loss of other personal freedoms since “Roe v. Wade is part of a web of rights related to intimate relationships… if you pull out the Roe thread, then the rest of the patchwork starts to unravel” (Alston). The implications Roe v. Wade can have on all personal freedoms and civil liberties necessitates that everyone re-evaluates their current stance on the case in order to protect women’s rights.
Works Cited
“Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, despite Dramatic Declines in Rates.” Guttmacher Institute, 22 Nov. 2017, https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates
“AFCARS Report #28.” The Administration for Children and Families, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/afcars-report-28.
“Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion.” Guttmacher Institute, 3 May 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion.
Chae, Sophia, et al. “Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: A Synthesis of Findings from 14 Countries.” Contraception, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Oct. 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/.
Goodwin, Michele. “The New Jane Crow.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 11 May 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/maternal-mortality-pregnancy-deaths-overturn-roe/629816/.
Green, Emma. “In Between Pro-life and Pro-choice.” The Experiment Podcast, Rebecca Shrader, This American Life, 16 December 202. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/12/pro-life-christian-changed-views-abortion/621028/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share.
Kim, Jonathan. “Injunction.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction#:~:text=An%20injunction%20is%20a%20court,injunctions%20are%20equitable%20in%20nature.
Kortsmit, Katherine, et al.“Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2019.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 Nov. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm.
Loller, Travis. “What Is Roe v. Wade?” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 3 May 2022, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-roe-v-wade.
Mangan, Dan. “Leaked Draft Supreme Court Decision Would Overturn Roe v. Wade Abortion Rights Ruling, Politico Report Says.” CNBC, CNBC, 3 May 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/leaked-draft-supreme-court-abortion-decision-would-overturn-roe-v-wade.html.
McCammon, Sarah. “What Would Overturning Roe Mean for Birth Control?” NPR, NPR, 11 May 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097666334/roe-birth-control.
@phoebe_bridgers. “ I had an abortion in October of last year while I was on tour. I went to planned parenthood where they gave me the abortion pill. It was easy. Everyone deserves that kind of access.” Twitter, 3 May, 2022, 4:08 pm., https://twitter.com/phoebe_bridgers/status/1521582506801254400.
“Read Justice Alito’s Initial Draft Abortion Opinion Which Would Overturn Roe v. Wade.” POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504.
“Roe v. Wade.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#History_of_abortion_laws_in_the_United_States.
Sanger-katz, Margot, et al. “Who Gets Abortions in America?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html.
Shrader, Rebecca. “My Crisis Pregnancies Changed My View on Abortion.” Afflictions Eclipsed by Glory, 18 Nov. 2018, https://joshandrebeccashrader.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/my-crisis-pregnancies-changed-my-view-on-abortion/. Accessed 31 May 2022.
Strauss, Peter. “Due Process.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process.
Supreme Court. Jane ROE, Et Al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. 22 Jan. 1973. Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 . Accessed 30 May 2022.
“Texas Heartbeat Act.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act#:~:text=The%20Texas%20Heartbeat%20Act%2C%20Senate,about%20six%20weeks%20of%20pregnancy.
“Text — H.R.705–117th Congress (2021–2022): Heartbeat Protection Act …” Congress.Gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/705/text.
