Reality after Roe v. Wade
The Roe v. Wade court case was filed by “Jane Roe” against Texas District attorney Henry Wade when she wanted an illegal abortion in Texas in 1973, but this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn the case which could drastically change the lives of all women in the U.S.
The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case protected women’s right to abortion for 49 years when the Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that abortion bans were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment which guarantees the “right to privacy.”
On June 24 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a 5-4 decision, using its power to remove women’s rights regarding their own bodies. The decision enacted trigger laws in multiple states and has given many more states the chance to enact restrictive bans.
Trigger laws came into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned. Alabama’s House bill HB314, or the “Human Life Protection Act” prohibits performing or attempting to perform an abortion for “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.” Oklahoma’s SB612 has similar restrictions and made it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion but not to receive one. In these cases, the punishment for abortions falls on the medical provider, placing extra moral pressure on women when choosing whether or not to get an abortion because someone else could be punished for their decision.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade tightens restrictions on multiple aspects of women’s health and the medical field in general. The drug methotrexate, which can be used to treat ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, is a common drug used to treat arthritis, psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and other autoimmune diseases and has been increasingly difficult to get in states already applying abortion restrictions. This medication is not used in medication abortions but is still being restricted because of its connection with ending pregnancies.
In Texas pharmacists now decide whether or not to fill prescriptions for medications like methotrexate and misoprostol that can perform abortions or facilitate miscarriages. This gives pharmacists the opportunity to choose who can receive the medication they need. Methotrexate is being restricted for people with chronic pain, showing our government’s oversight regarding health. People with chronic conditions were put on the back burner because of the possibility that these medications could be used for purposes that some people in power disagree with.
Abortion laws can be quite confusing. Georgia’s law, House Bill 481 (the heartbeat law) was signed by Governor Brian Kemp in May 2019, however, in June 2020 it was found unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. After Roe v. Wade was overturned the heartbeat law was immediately reenacted. The law has gone into and out of effect multiple times since the overturning but as of Dec. 9 it is in effect.
The heartbeat law mandates that abortions can be performed up until fetal cardiac activity can be detected—with very limited exceptions, most notably if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s life. The other main exception is if the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape, but this exception only applies if a police report has been filed.
This exception becomes faulty in cases of domestic violence and other cases where it’s unsafe for women unable to file police reports. These exceptions also imply that women should be able to carry a baby in any other case, even if they cannot physically, emotionally or financially support a child. These exceptions also allow restrictions in some cases but not others. This gray area shows the ability of the government to pick and choose when women are worthy of having a choice in their future.
Many other states have also started enforcing strict bans on abortion access. Texas, Mississippi, Missouri and several others have outlawed it without the six week period of availability. Most of these states include similar exceptions, but the Supreme Court decided not to make the exceptions mandatory.
Georgia House Bill 481 also established unborn children as “natural persons.” Section 3, of the bill reads “Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural person, including an unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, shall be included in population based determinations.”
This language raises the question of if women are valued the same as the contents of their uterus. If a pregnant woman is carrying another legal person, why is their future being valued the same or less than the future of the cells growing inside them? Having a child changes the course of a woman’s life, and this change gives women less control over the decisions of their future.
If unborn babies are given the rights guaranteed in the constitution like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, mothers should be guaranteed the necessary resources to support these babies. The U.S. guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave for employees of companies that have 50 or more employees, but only 12% of Americans actually get paid parental leave. Parents are being forced to have children, but they aren’t given the money, time and other resources to keep them alive and healthy.
No one is ever sure if they will need an abortion in the future or if a planned pregnancy will end up unsafe. The entire course of women’s lives can and will be changed based on a decision made by five individuals, only one of them having a uterus.
