On The Uselessness of Overturning Roe v. Wade
On the 2nd of May, 2022, POLITICO published an article, reporting on a Supreme Court opinion draft, for the Court case Dobbs v. Jackson, that had been leaked to them. In it, Justice Samuel Alito revealed the majority ruling of the Court:
We hold that [Roe v. Wade]… must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision…
With such a reveal came, of course, a fair amount of reaction: Those who are pro-choice have been rallying against the decision, seeing it as an attack on the bodily autonomy of women; those who are pro-life, on the other hand, see it as a victory in the battle to protect life, specifically that of those who aren’t born yet and aren’t able to protect themselves. However, neither side asks an important question: does this revelation change anything?
Let’s first look at an important fact of the matter: the leaked document is the first draft for the Court ruling opinion. The actual case, however, has not been ruled on: no official opinion document has been completed, and there has been no news as of late about the Court’s decision in the residing case. The other judges, then, have time to change their decision, either leading to the overruling or to an affirmation of Roe v. Wade. Both sides are reacting too soon: it might be just a spectacle, with everyone making a fuss over nothing.
For the sake of argument, let us say this will be the official Court ruling. What effects will it actually have?
Scenario A (In the Short Run): Nothing much. Abortion will remain legal in most states. The overruling of Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal: as Justice Alito puts it,
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives… the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives… The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
While this ruling allows states to prohibit abortion, it does not mean that the states must prohibit abortion. Because the choice to regulate is up to the elected body of each state, abortion will more likely than not be legal in most states, or possibly slightly regulated. Alito even recognizes that,
At the time of [Roe v. Wade], 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws…
More likely than not, then, a few states such as Texas and Florida will prohibit abortion, yes; but other states, such as Illinois, will still keep abortion legal. Other states may even allow it, but have regulations for certain cases (such as in this ruling, where Mississippi law allows for abortion “in the case of a medical emergency or fetal abnormality”). While there might be change, in the short run, this will more likely than not effect very little.
Scenario B (In the Long Run): Due to the regulation of abortion in certain states, there will both be a flood of people traveling between states to get abortions, and a black market formed for abortion services. Just as the prohibition of alcohol did not lead to national sobriety and a decrease in consumption, but the formation of illegal and more risky markets for alcohol, so will the prohibition of abortion lead to more risky markets for it, instead of a decrease in abortions. Even before Roe v. Wade, there were already underground abortion services being ran; what’s to stop that from happening again?
Now, let’s say the states prohibiting abortion decide that, to combat such alternative ways to get an abortion, they start to regulate more things: travel would have to be regulated so that the state could make sure people were not going into another state to get an abortion, hindering freedom of movement; certain drugs would, of course, need to be regulated, in case those could be used to induce a miscarriage; snitching networks, enforced and incentivized by the state, would need to be created (and which has already been tried in Texas); etc., etc. Would any of this help with preventing abortions? No, they would not. They merely create a more repressive environment for people to live in, acting as an excuse to strengthen government control. More harm would be done than good.
Of course, one should ask why we should care what the government thinks? None of its laws are made to protect people’s freedoms, to ensure their liberty: it regularly tramples on all the rights supposedly enshrined in the Constitution. Why should we then care what the Supreme Court decides is “constitutional” or not?
If people want abortion, there will always be a market to supply that want, whether it’s white, grey, or black. Regulations won’t help anything: people regularly curtail the law if they so wish to. If you wish for the market for it to not exist, you must get rid of the demand for it in the first place.
I am personally against abortion: it’s part of my faith as a Catholic and my belief in the sanctity of life. Even so, I see this ruling as pointless, leading to nowhere good: it’ll do nothing to solve the problem, or it’ll exacerbate the problem. What’s needed is not more regulations, but more services: services and networks that’ll help those in need, that’ll help pregnant teens, low income parents, etc., so that they will not see abortion as necessary, or else face economic poverty and social ostracization.
We already have such organizations made: nonprofits such as Advocates For Adolescent Mothers and the Northwest Center provide aid and assistance to teenage parents, so they can be able to raise their child and go through the pregnancy without facing a life of squalor. Churches regularly run charity collections to support teen mothers so they don’t need to have an abortion. And there are new and budding projects, such as the Serene Hearts Syndicate, that wish to create environments that are safe and supporting for people going through social and economic hardships while being parents.
Instead of focusing on what the law says we can or can’t do, let’s give a big middle finger to it in its entirety: Fuck the State and all it stands for; fuck all of its laws and its decrees. Let’s create the world we want to live in; let’s create organizations, networks, communities in which we help and support each other, instead of ostracizing, belittling, snitching on others in the supposed name of piety or righteousness. Actually do something to help others! Only then can we truly create a free world, and one in which we’d love to live in, in which life is respected and individuality honored.
