The Reproductive Rallying Cry
Also by Audrey Elberger, Nathaniel Ibrahim, and Simon Moncke
On June 24, 2022, fifty years of precedent were overturned by the Supreme Court through the 6–3 decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). The result of this case declared that it is entirely up to the state to offer or deny abortions at any trimester of pregnancy, regardless of the decision or health of the pregnant person. The case that it overturned, Roe v. Wade (1973), was a decision that protected pregnant persons from State interference in the first trimester of pregnancy on a constitutional basis, with limitations in the second and third trimesters based on the health of the person and/or fetus. Even while abortion was a constitutional right, the State still held power in permitting or denying a person this medical procedure. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), abortion was re-affirmed as such, but it ruled that the State had the ability to interfere from the start of fertilization, eradicating the trimester outline set in Roe v. Wade. Articles circulating around the Internet after the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson point out “safe havens” where abortion is still protected, but they fail to acknowledge that many do not have the luxury to afford travel to these areas. This was even the situation while abortion was a constitutional right, further emphasizing that access to this medical procedure is a race, class, and gender issue.
Imagined by Hamilton to be “the weakest of the three departments of power”, the Supreme Court’s power is to interpret and by extension, establish constitutional law. Its role was described clearly by Justice Robert Jackson: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts”. In this fundamental function of the Court, there is a rift between government and people. By design, the Court must be made of elites separate from the public so that the fundamental character of the American state is protected from popular input. This necessarily closes certain political options for the public. What if, Americans, contrary to the system outlined in the Constitution, want material security guaranteed by the state? Questions such as this are addressed by Court decisions and tend to skew conservative because of the milieu from which most justices come.
The appointment of justices provides a space for special interests to influence the Court and the appointment of its lifelong justices — the length of their terms also extends a president’s agenda past their popularity–precludes any popular input like an election. The appointment process becomes a political game between the Executive Branch and the Senate, one which today is increasingly wrapped in party politics. More politically significant than this conflict is the pool from which justices are chosen. Increasingly, appointees come from a consolidated legal class of Ivy graduates and scholars. The psychology and material interests of this milieu are reflected in the Court’s decisions. While justices will not always skew conservative on “social” issues, like abortion, the answer to who can access and appeal to the Executive Branch remains the same: Capital. The Court is then highly susceptible to moneyed, reactionary interest groups. As was seen with Donald Trump’s relationship with the Federalist Society, funded organizations may aid the Executive Branch and thus may play a role in judicial nomination.
In the process of choosing cases, Court justices are interested only in cases which are constitutionally relevant and that are of some interest to each specific justice. The Court, being the only body that decides what is constitutionally relevant, selects its own case — of the 7,000 to 8,000 petitions made each year, only an average of 80 are heard — excluding many whose result may be relevant not only to the case’s parties but the larger American population. The selection of these cases once again is ruled by Capital, as the petitions with expensive amicus briefs are more likely to be heard. Heavily funded advocacy groups outside of the Court and the will of the people can then set the Court’s agenda. Additionally, because of the flexibility of constitutional texts, Court decisions are made through a competition of ideological groups within the Court itself. The influence of ideological groups within and without the Court makes Court decisions much more political than justices will portray.
It is no sensationalist exercise to admit that this state of affairs spells a grim prognosis for reproductive rights in the United States. The powerful yet inherently undemocratic institution of the Supreme Court has been hijacked by reactionary forces bent on reversing decades of social progress at a whim. The right to an abortion is in jeopardy today while LGBTQ+ rights and sexual health may be so tomorrow. That said, not all is lost. There are proven strategies at our disposal that will amplify the voice of the people and make it clear that our demands must be met all the while continuing to support and facilitate reproductive care. These strategies primarily deal with fundraising, direct action, and labor organizing.
Throughout the United States, there are statewide, regional, and national abortion funds routinely accepting donations with the hope of easing the financial burden the operation represents for many people. These organizations often work in conjunction with reproductive care centers and other healthcare institutions, providing funds for transportation, lost income or job loss, childcare, and the abortion itself. The National Network of Abortion Funds provides an incredibly thorough database of these organizations listed by state. In the state of Michigan, donations can be sent to Reclaim MI WIN Fund and The Reproductive Health Fund of YWCA Kalamazoo.
Beyond fundraising, the fight for reproductive rights is also waged in the streets. Direct action events such as protests, rallies, and teach-ins are being held by organizations across the state of Michigan as well as nationally. These groups may be fully geared toward to the issue of reproductive health, as is the case with the Michigan Coalition for Reproductive Liberation, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan (PPAM), and Reproductive Freedom for All, or they may be fighting for abortion rights within a larger anti-capitalist movement, as is the case with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA).
Within the context of this broader anti-capitalist tilt, the struggle for reproductive justice most importantly serves as an example of why labor organizing should lie at the base of all other grassroots efforts. Under an oppressive, capitalist, forcefully evangelical society, the individual sits powerless, unable to singlehandedly alter the institutions that maintain the status quo. However, in exploiting the society’s unwavering reliance on endless capital (i.e., endless labor), this individual can act in tandem with their fellow coworkers, collectively withholding their labor until their demands are met and more desirable conditions are assured. Fundraising initiatives and direct action are vital to keeping the fight alive today, but organizing one’s workplace is the way individuals build collective power so that institutions are left with no choice but to comply with the will of the people tomorrow.
We can see an example of a succesful campaign for abortion rights in the Republic of Ireland. Ireland has had a reputation for being socially conservative, and for years the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland banned abortion in nearly all circumstances. In 2012, the first March for Choice was organized, and the next several years saw massive demonstrations and even pressure from the United Nations for Ireland to change its abortion laws. Labor organizers, seeing the Irish Government’s failure to act on this pressure, turned to more radical measures. On International Women’s Day in 2017, thousands of women went on strike and shut down Dublin for four hours, demanding an end to the Eighth Amendment. The following year, the Irish government called a referendum for abortion rights, and two-thirds of Irish voters chose to repeal the amendment.
Abortion rights in Argentina have a similar history. As in Ireland, the Catholic Church is a dominant force in Argentinian politics, and has helped keep abortion limited for decades. The US-backed military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983 further limited abortion rights, as well as repressing progressive politics more generally. The abortion rights movement began to pick up again in the 90s, and, in alignment with the movement against femicide, led to a women’s mass strike in 2016 and massive demonstrations for abortion rights as part of the “Green Wave” in 2018. The Argentinian Congress finally legalized abortion in 2020. In both Argentina and Ireland, large-scale, disruptive labor action directly preceded the government giving in to public pressure on abortion rights.
As such, we should all ask ourselves these key questions: Is my workplace unionized? If so, how can I become a part of the union? If not, how do I get that conversation started? The aforementioned organizations (DSA and YDSA) have chapters across the country, with a multitude of resources regarding labor organizing, unionization, and much more. The sooner unionizing efforts get underway in every workplace, the sooner the working class and oppressed peoples nationwide can leverage their collective power in the name of a more just society.
