Introduction
On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court made a far-reaching historic decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling that established women’s constitutional right to abortion in 1973. Although the decision caught some people by surprise, most Americans anticipated such outcome as there were rumors from early May that the judges would reject the ruling. However, the move has not been taken lightly since it does not resonate with the tenets of privacy, democracy, and human rights as stipulated in the US constitution. There are several reasons why a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy, including potential threats to their health and well-being in the future. Thus, banning abortion goes against women’s best interest as it infringes on their privacy and dictates what they must do with their bodies. Therefore, the following passages provide a brief background on the Roe v. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn it, arguments against the new ruling, counterarguments, and a refutation of these counterarguments.
The Roe v. Wade Ruling and Abortion Laws
The issue of legalizing and criminalizing abortion has been the subject of heated debates for decades. However, the Roe v. Wade landmark case in 1973 paved the way to legalize abortion for reasons that going otherwise would violate individuals’ right to privacy. During the 1973 hearing, the Supreme Court judges ascertained that despite not being directly listed in the constitution, the liberty of privacy is implied and it extends to the right to have an abortion (Mangan and Breuninger). Nevertheless, different states have varying interpretations of what constitutes the right to privacy, allowing them to rule out abortion as one of these rights. For example, in 1998, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reaffirmed a decision made earlier that no component of life is more private and personal than the reproductive system and sexual organs. Hence, the state holds that the constitutional right extends to determining whether to have an abortion or not (Mangan and Breuninger). Similarly, although Iowa has altered its laws to allow abortion before 20 weeks into a pregnancy, it has always recognized the right to abortion, meaning that its citizens will experience the reparations of the ruling.
Arguments against Banning Abortion
Since the Supreme Court made its decision to overturn the 1973 ruling, the battle of whether or not to ban abortion has shifted to states with nine states abolishing the practice entirely after six weeks of pregnancy. Four states plan to implement these changes over the coming weeks, while eight other states have applied the changes without meeting any resistance from courts. On the other hand, activists and attorneys representing abortion service providers in various states have moved to court with the argument that state constitutions should prioritize their citizens’ right to privacy (Roe v Wade). As a result, it would be unfair to criminalize abortion and women’s healthcare plans as a result of abortion. Consequently, eleven states, including Idaho, Kentucky, and Mississippi have been blocked by courts from adopting the new regulations (Mangan and Breuninger). Thus, it is evident that the ruling has implications that may exasperate in the future as it has already led to heated disagreements, protests from citizens, demonstrations by activists, and confusion within the judicial system.
All individuals have a right to make autonomous decisions regarding their health and bodies, which includes whether or not to bear children. Therefore, the civil-right to safe abortion should not be perceived as a standalone liberty as it aligns with the human right to live free from violence, equality, health, and privacy (Gans 191). On the other hand, laws and regulations that restrict abortion violate these freedoms because they purport discrimination. For several decades, abortion laws have made exceptions in rare cases where a pregnancy develops an anomaly and in cases of rape or incest (Roe v Wade). However, the latest changes do not incorporate any exceptions meaning that they are inconsiderate and unfair. Women have varying experiences with pregnancy and their situation might be transformed at any point of the pregnancy cycle, thus requiring a termination. However, laws and regulations that restrict abortion and only allow it in life-threatening situations prevent medical practitioners from carrying out their duties and undermine the value of human life (Gans 191). These rules suggest that clinicians must wait until a patient is critically ill and unstable to carry out the procedure.
Banning abortion is a non-essential decision by the US Supreme Court because it will not reduce its rates. Studies reveal that women terminate pregnancies worldwide regardless of what laws and regulations stipulate (Oberman 16). As a result, banning abortion will have negative implications on women’s health and impact healthcare systems because most women will not have access to the required care and necessary services. According to research conducted by a US-based non-profit women’s reproductive health organization, 37 out of 1000 pregnant women have abortions in countries that prohibit the act, while 34 out of 1000 women terminate pregnancies in regions that accept it (Oberman 18). Therefore, the difference is statistically insignificant meaning that there are no correlations between banning abortion and its prevalence. The variations lie in the quality of care received after abortion. When performed by a trained medical practitioner, adhering to proper sanitary conditions, and the appropriate tools, abortion is a safe medical procedure. However, when the constitution restricts abortion, women are obligated to resolve to unsafe methods of terminating pregnancies, thus putting them at risk. Hence, it is critical to acknowledge these factors and their implications.
In addition, putting a ban on abortion procedures and limiting healthcare providers from providing critical care to patients who need it has an implication on mortality rates due to unsafe procedures and pregnancy issues. A majority of deaths that occur due to unsafe abortion practices are preventable with the right care and medical attention. However, prohibiting abortion means that women and girls cannot access these services legally (Chemlal and Russo 5). As shown in the Figure 1 below, jurisdictions with less restrictive abortion laws have higher numbers of safe abortions than in more restrictive areas. Although there are some exceptions in most jurisdictions, a small percentage of women seek abortion because of these reasons, thus obligating them to put their lives at risk or face jail time. Nevertheless, marginalized individuals and people exposed to substandard healthcare services suffer the most because they lack alternatives, forcing them to suffer through adverse experiences (Gans 191). However, decriminalizing abortion can help women seek assistance before taking action that could interfere with their health. Subsequently, they will utilize safer methods, high-quality drugs, and fast response in case of injuries or emergencies.
Counterarguments
Individuals who support abolishing abortion hold that life begins at conception and not at birth or after 20 weeks as some states exempt. Thus, they suggest that abortion is similar to murder and should not be condoned in a moral human society. Conception refers to the moment that a sperm cell fertilizes an ovum in the womb to spark cell differentiation and create a human being. Thus, being a distinct life form on earth, ending this process is against nature even if it involves a few cells. Pope Francis once explained that anyone who carries out an abortion is a murderer because body organs start developing by the third week when most women are unaware that they are pregnant (Koralewska and Zielińska 674). Scientifically, developing cells in a mother’s womb constitute human life. Therefore, supporters of abortion laws suggest that it is unjust to allow women to intentionally kill their unborn. Instead, they should be provided with solutions that do not involve killing fetuses.
Similarly, supporters of abortion regulations suggest that it is a practice that establishes a human culture where life is disposable. Religious leaders suggest that abortion is an act that does not acknowledge the sanctity of life. Instead, it purports cultural norms that target human life at its most vulnerable point by perceiving it as disposable. Some scholars link abortion to racism, suggesting that they are errors of human thinking and rational reasoning (Evans and Narasimhan). These factors are the same in that they support getting rid of an individual because they stand in the way of needs, preferences, or wants. Thus, they are fruits of human selfishness and serve to deceive people that others are less human, less worthy, and less important. If individuals decide to face this truth, then it would not be right to legalize abortion. However, abortion is not always a choice for some mothers.
Refutation
Although abortion might not always be an answer to an unwanted pregnancy, pregnant women do not experience similar situations as some of them discover that they have ailments that can harm the baby or put them at risk during delivery. Therefore, abolishing abortion without any exceptions would be unfair to these women as it would deny them the right to a comfortable life and health. Moreover, human rights activists always advocate for a society that respects other people’s decisions or infringes on their privacy (Majority of Public Disapproves). Hence, considering human rights standards, abolishing abortion is not justifiable as it infringes on individuals’ decision-making rights on what to do with their bodies. On that account, the issue of abolishing abortion warrants deep thought because of its complexity and sensitivity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling shifted the battle of abortion rights to state players and their constitutions. Although several states have implemented the new guidelines, most of them are yet to establish abortion laws due to resistance from various parties. However, abolishing abortion is against the constitution as it discriminates against women and infringes on their right to autonomous decision-making and privacy. All individuals have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Thus, it would not be just to prevent women from terminating unwanted pregnancies because in some cases, it could be a matter of life and death. Thus, there are several factors to consider before implementing laws that abolish abortion.
Works Cited
Roe v Wade: What Is US Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion? BBC News, 2022.
Chemlal, Sonia, and Giuliano Russo. “Why Do They Take the Risk? A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Literature on Informal Sector Abortions in Settings where Abortion is Legal.” BMC Women’s Health, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-11.
Evans, Dabney P., and Subasri Narasimhan. “A Narrative Analysis of Anti-Abortion Testimony and Legislative Debate Related to Georgia’s Fetal “Heartbeat” Abortion Ban.” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, vol. 28, no.1, 2020.
Gans, David H. “Reproductive Originalism: Why the Fourteenth Amendment’s Original Meaning Protects the Right to Abortion.” SMU L. Rev. F. vol. 75, no. 1, 2022, pp. 191.
Koralewska, Inga, and Katarzyna Zielińska. “‘Defending the Unborn’, ‘Protecting Women’ and ‘Preserving Culture and Nation’: Anti-Abortion Discourse in the Polish Right-Wing Press.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 24, no. 5, 2022, pp. 673-687.
Mangan, Dan, and Kevin Breuninger. “Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Ending 50 Years of Federal Abortion Rights.” CNBC, 2022.
Oberman, Michelle. “What Will and Won’t Happen When Abortion is Banned.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 9, no.1, 2022, pp. 1-22.
Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, 2022.
Singh, Susheela, et al. “Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access.” 2018.