Month: April 2023

The Dobbs v Jackson supreme court decision was a case brought up by the women’s health organization vs the supreme court challenging Mississippi’s law which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks. This law is unconstitutional and takes away a woman’s right to abortion. It overturned Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey. It states that abortion is illegal even if it was incest and rape and the olu exception was severe bodily harm and if the fetus is unable to live outside of the womb. And With the current situation in the United States, over half of the states are divided on this topic of abortion based on votes. This Mississippi law was based on a Christian organization where that brought the legal battle to the only abortion clinic in Mississippi and sued Tomas E Dobbs, a state health officer who was head of the clinic. 

Many people were outraged over this decision, however amidst this struggle, many organizations have voiced their opinions by releasing a statement to the public through websites and this helps create and reinforce a collective memory of Dobbs V Jackson. 

Non Profit  

“The Court has restricted the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans, uprooting decades of precedent and a right upon which hundreds of thousands of Americans have relied – especially low-income people of color.”

Community Visions, a nonprofit organization has stated its stance with the Dobbs V Jackson, by stating that these decisions will negatively affect lower income families. Lower income families already have harder access to abortion due to the cost and location of where abortion clinics are located. Especially in Mississippi, this abortion clinic was the only one. Instead of a decision that will benefit the public, it made the problems worse than it already was. Not only that, the decision that abortions illegal could increase the risk of poverty as childcare is costly. This decision to restrict women ‘s reproductive rights can foresee a future of disaster according to Community Vision since if such a vital right of bodily autonomy is stripped, what else could the Supreme Court do in the future? Would it stripe our rights to marriage, like same-sex marriage? A large nonprofit organization has given its support against Dobbs V Jackson, it helps reinforce the idea that these things are what makes the decision so revolting and a lot of people agree with it.

Association of american college

The AAMC, (American College Association) president issued a statement saying, “The consequence of today’s decision will significantly limit access for so many and increase health inequities across the country, ultimately putting women’s lives at risk.” Not having an abortion placed some women lives at birth, and only with the exception of creating an severe impairment to the body or the baby cannot live outside of the womb. This means that rapes and incest abortions arent even allowed. Rapes and incest such unjust things done, yet abortion is still not allow for even this scenarios shows how the rights of an women is placed below an unborn fetus. Younger women who get raped can have a harder time conviein chidlren and have higher rates of complication durin birth which can risk deaths and major health problmes in the future. They also stated that this decision can cause equity problems in the future in healthcare and are working with healthcare system to still provide equitable healthcare while adjusting to the situation. While also blatantly stating that the are agonist this decision made by the supreme court. 

University of Illionios in Chicago

They released a statement of the public addressing the concerns of the Dobbs V Jackson decisions. They also stated that they were against this decision that the supreme court made, and that this can impact the girlhood of many minority groups. They include people of “disabilities, LGBTQ, minorities and immigrants.” they addressed all the minorities who might have a harder time gaining access to resources, even before Dobbs V jackson and how it placed them at a disadvantage financially, Saying that the University does not support the decision wand will try its best to have resources available for any student that are in need heteh rit therapy, counseling, or access to abortion, they also blatantly state there opinions on the Dobbs V jackson decision. 

Through the opinions of different organizations and groups, who have stated their opinions though public statements have formed a site of collective memory through the form of speech hy having similar stances on the Dobbs Vs jackson decisions. They composed a list of needs that are being neglected due to Dobbs v Jackson which shows the opinion of a whole group of individuals who are opposed to the Dobbs V Jackson decision. 

To conclude, the moral consequences, and the excess problems, minority group have to go through are multiplied through the Dobbs V jackson decision which makes its an unethical decision, which has been stated by many organization through their public outlet. This is a way of forming collective memory by stating what most people who are agonist the decision think, this helps give public support and allowed the public to know that many organizations do not agree with the decisions, and creates a way of creating a collective memory of how united everyone is during such decisions. 

Ada Chen

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/aamc-statement-supreme-court-decision-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

https://president.yale.edu/president/statements/supreme-court-decision-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization

The public memory that surrounds Roe v Wade and the positive things that have come about, including a step forward in women’s reproductive rights, spousal choices, and health, are all just the collective memory of this country as a whole in regards to the debate. In this reading, I will be focusing on the collective memory of the problems solved by the Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 and explaining how they are positive. Prior to this ruling, many women often sought out unorthodox ways of terminating their pregnancy, which most of the time was very risky and even fatal for the woman. Due to the infamous Roe v Wade case, women are finally able to seek legal ways to terminate their pregnancy. Today, there are nearly one million reported abortions per year, and one in four women in the United States has had an abortion [5].

Among the problems that have been solved with this ruling, there are a few that stand out as compared to others. For example, before the initial ruling, many women were inclined to marry at young ages due to the fact that they had gotten pregnant. Prior to the ruling, the average age of first marriage in women was just 21 in the United States [1]. This stat shows that pregnancy is very closely related to marriage. However, with the access to safe abortion practices, the average age of marriage has dramatically increased. Today, with over 50 years of access to safe abortion, the average age of women has increased to 27 [1]. This shows that women are now able to hold-off on the pressure to marry so young because they can now terminate their pregnancy if they feel they aren’t ready to start a family yet. According to a study, 31% of women surveyed cited parter-related reasons as reasons for seeking an abortion [4]. The next problem that has been addressed through the initial ruling of Roe v Wade is the effect on a woman’s education/career. According to a study, 65.7% of women feel that their education has been negatively effected after an unplanned birth[2]. Teen pregnancy is something that has been often linked to the idea that your career is ruined before it is even started because of such an early pregnancy. For example, 30% of all teen girls who drop out of school cite pregnancy as the reason. Furthermore, only 40% of these teen mothers finish high school, and less than 2% finish college by 30 [1]. These statistics provide substantial evidence to further convey the message that teen pregnancy has drastically affected the careers of many women. However, now with access to safe abortions, they are able to have children when they feel they are ready too. Moreover, not only do these teen pregnancies hurt the mothers, but they can also be detrimental for the children once they are born. This is because they are growing up with a mother with little education, which means she is likely has unstable employment. Due to this, the child grows up in poverty, poised to repeat the cycle. This also adds to the message being conveyed because not only are the mothers’ career affected, but the unborn children will also suffer as a result, which over time could possibly increase poverty.

On the other hand, for some women, their reasons for abortions are health related. A mother’s love for a child extends even before she meets them. Due to this, women will often make decisions to protect them before they are even born. For example, women cited issues such as lack of prenatal care, risk of birth defects, history of miscarriages, hard drug use, and the fetal exposure to prescription medications [3]. When making a decision on whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy, a mother must consider her own health and the health of the baby. As a result, with the initial ruling in Roe v Wade, women have the choice to terminate their pregnancy safely in order to protect their health. In a study conducted by uban.org, 40.7% of women who had an unplanned birth cited physical health as a negative effect [2]. As we begin to look back on all these reasons for abortion that have been solved with the Roe v Wade, there is a major one that is compounded by them all. This is the mental health aspect of the mother. According to a study, an astounding 58.6% of surveyed women cited mental health as a negative effective of an unplanned birth [2]. Pregnancy brings about a lot of new and for some, foreign obstacles. Especially for younger women, these things can be overly stressful for those that are on that are own without a spouse. To continue, there also women who have dealt with mental health disorders throughout their life and are hesitant risk passing that down to their child [4]. In conclusion, all of these examples of provide substantial evidence to support the collective memory of Roe v Wade and how there have been problems solved by the initial ruling. The access to safe abortions to terminate pregnancies have statically improved situations where women are now able to have children when they are ready, chase that career that they desperately want, and choose who they want to have children with, which may be the most important. If you are on the edge about this issue, I would like you to ask the question, how many women were essentially forced into marriage with horrible men prior to Roe v Wade? This is a very real question because many women were impregnated by terrible individuals who in turn could have turned into abusers who terrorized their own families, therefore, making a negative contribution to society, especially with the effect it had on the children. The collective memory of this court case has helped progress this country down a great path of independency for women where they now have a say in what goes on with their bodies.

Works Cited

1. The impact of Roe v. Wade on Women. Giving Compass. (2020, April 9). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://givingcompass.org/article/the-impact-of-roe-v-wade

2. Research shows access to legal abortion improves women’s lives. Urban Institute. (2022, May 27). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/research-shows-access-legal-abortion-improves-womens-lives

3. Finer, L. B., Frohwirth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S., & Moore, A. M. (2022, August 25). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

4. Biggs, M. A., Gould, H., & Foster, D. G. (2013, July 5). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US – BMC women’s health. BioMed Central. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

5. 1st Choice – LD. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://firstchoiceprc.com/pro-life-movement?gclid=CjwKCAjwue6hBhBVEiwA9YTx8LZhZE6pY-bh9ff7DUQTIqN_JGDN3F0bmpMpWAxy4FGWaz8n7uM1ARoCWLoQAvD_BwE

Abortion has always been a controversial topic of discussion. Often associated with the term abortion is the organization called Planned Parenthood. This is because Planned Parenthood is one of the largest organizations in the United States that performs abortions. During 1977, a Planned Parenthood site was set on fire in the state of Minnesota. This specific incident led to many more extreme acts of violence against Planned Parenthood facilities. Though Planned Parenthood was designed to be a safe place to receive care, the violent attacks against the organization since the  legalization of abortion have changed collective memory in the United States.  The arson attack in 1977 sparked continued acts of aggression causing collective memory regarding abortions to be associated with violence.

Planned Parenthood is a place that everyone has heard of at least once. It is supposed to be a safe building where women can go to receive help and advice on pregnancy and contraception. It is also a place mostly known for providing safe abortions to pregnant women that choose to have them. There are many different reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion, all of which are acceptable. Prior to the establishment of Planned Parenthood was a company “founded in New York by Margaret Sanger in 1916” as the first birth control clinic [5]. Of course this was at a time when abortion was illegal. Because of this, the company started out by focusing solely on women’s reproductive rights. Unfortunately, the company was shut down after only being open for nine days by police within the area [5]. This was due to the fact that they used birth control within the name of their company. Before 1948, birth control was something that was not yet in regular use throughout society. Sanger continued to fight for its use and decided to reopen the company under a different name.  She called it Planned Parenthood in 1948 [4]. The name was changed at this time in order to remove the words birth control [4]. After the court case Roe V. Wade made abortion legal in the United States, and the company started to perform abortions as well. 

The size of Planned Parenthood, and their founder’s involvement throughout the women’s rights movements, has caused it to be the first place many people go to protest. The case of Roe V. Wade was a pivotal point for women’s reproductive rights. Before this, abortions were deemed illegal and women could either not have them, or participate in unhealthy or deadly acts. While this case was good for many individuals, it created controversy throughout the country. Many individuals were against the idea of abortion and decided to make their opinions known. In 1977, just three years after Roe V. Wade, a Planned Parenthood in Minnesota was set on fire, causing more than sixty thousand dollars in damages [1]. This specific facility had historically been the focus of many different forms of vandalism, such as graffiti being painted across the outside walls, even before they started performing abortions. The violence only increased with the Roe V. Wade verdict. This was most likely due to the location of the building. The Planned Parenthood site was in a “Highland Park neighborhood” that contained a group of residents calling themselves Citizens for Concerned Action [1]. With this site being the only one within the state of Minnisota to perform abortions, the citizens and participants of the organization were ardently opposed to it being there. The individual who performed the arsonry was named Joseph Charles Stockett. Throughout his trial, State V. Stockett, it was found out that the defendant “felt that the Planned Parenthood Association was responsible for causing his former wife to have an abortion and for encouraging women to use IUD contraceptives which he felt were dangerous” [6]. Despite this, it was said by the head of the site that operations would be “administratively open” the next day [6]. While the damage overall was costly, it did not cause a change. However, this did not stop more crimes from occurring against Planned Parenthood buildings. According to CNN, between the years of 1973 and 2003, “there have been more than 200 bombings and arson attacks at facilities that offer abortion services” [2]. In addition, there has been documentation of “more than 16,000 reported cases of hate mail or harassing phone calls, over 1,500 acts of vandalism and 400 death threats” [2]. An image is provided below of a crime committed against a Planned Parenthood building that demonstrates the overall violence that occurs [7].

It is well known that Planned Parenthood has been the hub for many attacks by people trying to display their disagreement with abortion. The specific act of vandalism, arson, in Minnesota in 1977 is thought to be a starting point for further attacks. The act of Stockett changed the mindset of many people across the nation. This caused a shift within collective memory. Collective memory is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “the memory of a group of people”. In this instance, many people were already against the idea of abortion, but none had acted as violently as Stockett. The memory of that tragic incident at Planned Parenthood seems to have encouraged many others to perform similar acts of violence. This can be shown by the increased amount of arsonry and bombings that occurred after the incident in 1977. With continuing acts of violence occurring, collective memory about abortions changed.  Abortions were associated with Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood became associated with violence. This, in turn, caused abortions to be associated with violence. The current overall collective memory of abortions today more than likely played a  role in the recent decision of the supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade [7].

Megan McClain

Works Cited

[1] “Abortion Clinic Damaged by Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Feb. 1977, https://www.nytimes.com/1977/02/25/archives/abortion-clinic-damaged-by-fire.html.

[2] Hutcherson, Kimberly. “A Brief History of Anti-Abortion Violence.” CNN, Cable News Network, 1 Dec. 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/anti-abortion-violence/index.html. 

[3]“Oxford Languages and Google – English.” Oxford Languages, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/.   

[4] Perry, Mike. “The History of Planned Parenthood: EWTN.” EWTN Global Catholic Television Network, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/history-of-planned-parenthood-12139.

[5] Planned Parenthood & Birth Control History: Collections – Gale. https://www.gale.com/primary-sources/womens-studies/collections/planned-parenthood-and-birth-control-history.

[6] “State v. Stockett.” Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1977/278-or-637-6.html.

[7] Team, FOX 5 Digital, et al. “Planned Parenthood Vandalized with Red Paint.” FOX 5 San Diego, FOX 5 San Diego, 3 Apr. 2018, https://fox5sandiego.com/news/planned-parenthood-vandalized-with-red-paint/.  

What is Political Polarization? And what effect has it had on Politics in the United States?

Political polarization refers to the increasing ideological divide between individuals or groups within a society, where individuals or groups become more ideologically distant from each other, leading to a breakdown in social cohesion and compromise. It is a process where people move towards more extreme and ideologically pure positions on political and social issues, leading to a lack of agreement and understanding between people who hold differing viewpoints. In the United States, political polarization has been a significant factor in shaping.

the country’s political landscape over the past 30 years. The polarization is primarily driven by differences in political ideologies, such as liberal and conservative beliefs, and social issues, such as race, religion, gender, and sexuality. [1]One of the most significant consequences of political polarization in the United States is the inability of political parties to work together to pass meaningful legislation. [1]As political parties become more polarized, there is a reduction in the number of policies on which they can agree, and it becomes harder to find common ground. This has led to a gridlock in Congress and a lack of progress on important issues, such as healthcare, immigration, and climate change. Another consequence of political polarization is the rise of hyper-partisanship, where individuals or groups become more loyal to their party than to their country. [2]This has resulted in a decline in trust in government institutions and a rise in conspiracy theories and fake news. It has also led to increased hostility and intolerance towards people who hold different political views, leading to a rise in political violence and protests. Furthermore, political polarization has led to a lack of diversity in political media, where people consume only news and opinions that reinforce their existing beliefs. [2]This has resulted in a “filter bubble,” where people are less likely to engage in critical thinking and challenge their beliefs. This, in turn, leads to a further entrenchment of political polarization, as people become more isolated and less likely to engage with people who hold different opinions.

What is Pro-Life?

The pro-life movement is a political and social movement dedicated to protecting human life, especially fetal life. The movement is based on the belief that life begins at conception and therefore every human life, including the unborn child, has the right to be protected and preserved. [3]The pro-life movement argues that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. I believe that the situation is a gross violation of human dignity. They further argue that fetuses are defenseless, vulnerable and innocent human beings, and therefore deserve the same legal protection as other human beings. Some argue that the legalization of abortion has created a culture of death, treating fetal life as expendable and devaluing human life. They believe that the availability of abortion has led to a loss of respect for life and a breakdown of traditional moral values ​​and social norms. [3]Additionally, pro-life advocates argue that there are alternatives to abortion, including: B. Adoption can be a viable solution for women facing unwanted pregnancies. They claim to provide support to women and families. For example, access to health care, childcare and financial assistance can help reduce demand for abortion. Often associated with conservative and religious beliefs, the pro-life movement has been a key issue in American politics for decades. [3]Pro-life advocates have helped advance laws and policies that limit access to abortion. B. Mandatory Waiting Periods, Parental Consent Laws, and Midnight Abortion Restrictions. They have also elected politicians who share their views on abortion and have worked to influence the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation of abortion. 

What is Pro-Choice?

[4]The Pro-Choice Movement is a political and social movement that defends the right of women to continue or terminate pregnancies. The movement is based on the belief that women have the right to make decisions about their bodies, including reproductive health. Proponents of pro-choice argue that access to safe and legal abortion is essential to women’s health, well-being, and autonomy. They argue that women should have the right to decide whether and when to have children, and that the government should not intervene in these decisions. We believe that refusing to have an abortion can lead to unsafe and illegal abortions, which can result in serious health consequences, including death. They further argue that the decision to continue or abort a pregnancy is a personal and private matter that should be left to individual women and their healthcare providers. They argue that it is not the government’s job to decide what cannot be done. Pro-choice supporters also believe that abortion is a matter of social justice and equity. [4]It argues that safe and legal access to abortion for marginalized women is essential to achieving full economic and social equality. Abortion advocates argue that restricting access to abortion disproportionately harms already disadvantaged women. [4]Often associated with progressive and feminist beliefs, the pro-choice movement has been a key issue in American politics for decades. She has worked to advance laws and policies that protect women’s reproductive rights, including education and safe and legal abortion. 

How Has Political Polarization influenced Opinions on Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice?

Political polarization has greatly influenced views on the pro-life vs. pro-choice issue. In recent decades, political parties in the United States have become increasingly polarized on reproductive rights issues, with Republicans generally aligned with the pro-life movement and Democrats aligned with the pro-choice movement. This polarization has created deep divisions in public opinion on abortion and other reproductive rights issues. [5]For example, a 2020 Pew Research Center poll found that 61% of Democrats believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 77% of Republicans believe it should be legal in all or most cases. should be illegal. Political polarization has also influenced the way reproductive rights issues are formulated and publicly discussed. Abortion advocates often argue that abortion is a moral issue at the heart of their beliefs, whereas choice advocates argue that women’s right to choose and access health care Furthermore, political polarization makes it difficult for politicians to find common ground on issues related to reproductive rights, leading to legislative deadlocks. [6]For example, political polarization has hampered parliamentary efforts to pass broad legislation to protect or limit access to abortion. Overall, political polarization has greatly influenced views on the pro-life vs. pro-choice issue in the United States. [5]A widening rift between the two political parties over issues related to reproductive rights has created a deep division in public opinion, making it difficult for politicians to pass comprehensive legislation to address these issues.

How did Political Polarization Influence Roe vs. Wade?

The political polarization in the survivalist vs. alternative debate was a landmark Roe v. Wade decision in the 1973 Supreme Court. [7]In this case, the court ruled that a woman’s right to privacy under the 14th Amendment includes the right to choose an abortion. This decision was highly controversial at the time and continues to this day. Abortion rights advocates, often referred to as “pro-choice,” argue that women should be in control of their bodies and have the right to make their own reproductive choices, including choosing to have an abortion.Roe showing v. Wade as a decisive victory for women’s rights and reproductive freedom. [7]Anti-abortion opponents, often called “life advocates,” argue that life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Showing Roe v. Wade as a moral and legal farce, they have worked to overturn the decision ever since it was made. Over the years, the abortion debate has become increasingly polarized. With many political candidates making abortion a central issue in their campaigns, the issue has become a litmus test for many voters. As a result, the abortion debate is deeply entwined with American politics, and the political polarization around the issue shows no signs of abating.  

Why Does This All Matter?

Overall, the polarizing nature of this case boosted the universal memory of it being so divided. It is very difficult to tell whether people actually agree with the ideals put forward on both sides, or if they are just trying to stay loyal to a party. Due to this case, people have very little memory of their being liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats. On the other hand, there are also positive factors that help preserve this memory. Polarization in this particular case helps keep the memory of the protest and related protests alive. The protests and riots might not have happened if this incident had not been politically polarized. Ultimately, political polarization helps keep the memory of Roe v. Wade alive, but it kills the memory that political beliefs are on one spectrum rather than two opposite sides. 

By: Mekhi Ashford

Work Cited

[1] Lee, F. (2015). How Party Polarization Affects Governance. Annual Review of Political Science, 18(261–282). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113747

[2] Westfall, J., Boven, L., Chambers, J., & Judd, C. (n.d.). Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1177/1745691615569849 pps.sagepub.com

[3]Lee, P. (2004). The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity: A Defence. Bioethics, 18(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00393.x

[4] Kimala Price; What Is Reproductive Justice?: How Women of Color Activists Are Redefining the Pro-Choice Paradigm. Meridians 1 December 2020; 19 (S1): 340–362. doi:

[5] Lopez, R. (n.d.). Perspectives on Abortion: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in between . European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(4), 511–517. http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com

[6] CRAWLEY, S. L., WILLMAN, R. K., CLARK, L., & WALSH, C. (2009). Making Women the Subjects of the Abortion Debate: A Class Exercise that Moves Beyond “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life.” Feminist Teacher, 19(3), 227–240. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40546102

[7]Ziegler, M. (2014). Beyond backlash: legal history, polarization, and roe v. wade. Washington and Lee Law Review, 71(2), 969-1024.

These statistics are according to Susan B. Hansen of The Journal of Politics

Roe V. Wade, a legendary court case wrought with controversy, has had a massive impact on the history books. The following paragraphs are meant to only inform of the statistics and dates leading up to and surrounding the court case.

On January 22, 1973, after three years of deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that women have the right to have an abortion. This ruling took decisional power away from the government and gave it to the individual. This however, is by no means the beginning or end of this court case and to understand this case in its entirety, the history of abortion in the 13 Colonies and the United States must be examined.

artist rendition of Benjamin Franklin

While English professor Molly Farrell of The Ohio State University was conducting research at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts, she came across a book published by Benjamin Franklin in 1753 that detailed how to conduct an “at home” abortion.

In an interview with PBS Newshour Farrell states, “it’s remarkably explicit, actually. It’s really direct.”

The book titled, The American Instructor contains a menagerie of different recipes but the one that caught the eye of Professor Farrell was a section labeled “SUPPRESSION of the COURSES.”

Farrell says “this is for young, unmarried women, this is a problem that they usually have. And it says that they should not long for pretty fellows, or any other trash whatsoever, basically what got you, you know, into this mess was longing for pretty fellows.”

Farrell ends with, “the practice [was] deeply rooted in American history.”

Farrell goes on to examine another one of the founding fathers and their mentions of abortion.

“Thomas Jefferson mentions, again without any kind of judgment in his 1785 notes on the state of Virginia, that indigenous women in Virginia routinely induce abortion through the years use of particular herbs. So he mentions here the women very frequently attending the men in their parties of war and hunting, child-bearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said therefore, they have learned to the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable.”

Elizabeth Pope, Curator of Books and Digitized Collections at the American Antiquarian Society, finds an interesting quote in a sex manual and midwifery book from 1788 titled, Aristotle’s Masterpiece: “Midwives are admonished by no means to prescribe such medicines as will cause abortion though desired, which is a high degree of wickedness and may be termed murder.”

What makes this interesting according to Pope, is that “out of those more than 60 editions, only a few handful have those directions to midwives that I mentioned that describe abortion as murder, but even in that instance they do seem to be saying that midwives were providing abortions to people who had desired them.”

An additional facet of abortion that Farrell relates is that of enslaved women.

“We have testimony of enslaved black women talking about how, yes, when they would want to induce a miscarriage. They would take turpentine for example, and the enslavers knew about this and then so they would reformulate the turpentine that they use to make sure that it wouldn’t work in that it actively trying to stop them because of course that would reduce the value of their property.”

This may seem off topic from a perspective of the statistics and dates of Roe V. Wade but it is necessary to understand that for quite some time in the history of the United States, abortion was legal, made available through articles, and had minimal, if any moral dilemmas.

The question is, why did abortion become something so controversial?

It is commonly cited that after the Civil War, midwives were phased out in favor of male doctors. The doctors seemed to lack the expertise and know how those they were replacing and abortions became criminalized. In the late 1800s abortions had become vilified and with that came ill feelings toward the practice. By the turn of the 20th century, abortions had become illegal in all 50 states.

Here are some quick dates:

1600s – First Nation Peoples were practing abortion in what is now the United States

1652 – a single case of abortion was prosecuted criminally in the Catholic State of Maryland

1753 – Benjamin Franklin publishes The American Instructor

1783 – Thomas Jefferson discuss the abortion practices of the First Peoples of Virginia

1788 – Aristotle’s Masterpiece is published

1800s – more articles are published related to abortion

1860 – anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced 

1910 – abortion was banned nationwide 

1930s – deaths increase from unsafe abortions

1955 – Planned Parenthood conference on abortion legalization

1962 – children of Thalidomide

1960s – 10 states altered abortion laws

1970 – New York legalized abortion

1973 – Roe V. Wade

A Final Word

Abortion has been controversial ever since its inception. The discussions and the connotation it has today are likely to change as time goes on, but I have tried my best to present the precursors of Roe V. Wade in a truly neutral light with limited adjective use. I tried to give a brief history of some of the events that led to the court case but this is by no means a comprehensive list. This was not a topic I was entirely comfortable with in the beginning, but researching this made Roe V. Wade and the conversation at hand easier to understand. Thank you for reading.

Tyler V. Gupton

[1] “Abortion in U.S. History.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america. 

[2] Cynthia A. Kierner, and Poggi. “Perspective | a 1792 Case Reveals That Key Founders Saw Abortion as a Private Matter.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 July 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/07/19/1792-case-reveals-that-key-founders-saw-abortion-private-matter/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3Ql-iZzXlunKaMD638_Scw95PScr2o3VA8s_hfRJTj2u3Q2L9d32Ir5vk. 

[3] Hansen, Susan B. “State Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions: Abortion Rates Since Roe v. Wade.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 42, no. 2, 1980, pp. 372–95. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2130465. Accessed 21 Apr. 2023.

[4] “Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america/historical-abortion-law-timeline-1850-today. 

[5] Lindsey, Treva B. “Abortion Has Been Debated in the U.S. since 18th Century,” The Ohio State University, 6 May 2022, https://news.osu.edu/abortion-has-been-debated-in-the-us-since-18th-century/. 

[6] Solman, Paul, et al. “Early America’s Complicated History with Abortion Access.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 31 July 2022, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/early-americas-complicated-history-with-abortion-access. 

By Jacob Blanton

The clothes hanger has become an iconic symbol of the struggles women have faced in accessing safe and legal reproductive healthcare. It serves as a reminder of the harrowing reality that many women once faced when seeking to terminate a pregnancy, before the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Prior to the legalization of abortion, women had few options for ending an unwanted pregnancy, and were often forced to resort to unsafe and dangerous methods, including the use of clothes hangers as makeshift instruments to perform abortions on themselves.

Despite the landmark decision, the fight for reproductive rights has continued, with ongoing attempts to restrict access to abortion through laws and policies that place undue burdens on women seeking to exercise their right to choose. The use of the clothes hanger as a symbol of this struggle highlights the importance of accessible and safe reproductive healthcare for women, as well as the need to protect and expand reproductive rights.

The use of the clothes hanger as a symbol in the fight for reproductive rights is not just a representation of the struggles women have faced in accessing safe and legal reproductive healthcare, but it also highlights the intersectionality of gender and broader societal structures. The clothes hanger, which is a common household item used for hanging and caring for clothes, is deeply associated with the traditional femininity and domestic roles that women are often expected to fulfill in society. This association reinforces gender stereotypes and expectations that limit women’s agency and autonomy.

However, the use of the clothes hanger in the context of self-induced abortions subverts this traditional association and reveals the violence and danger that women have been forced to endure in their fight for reproductive autonomy. The image of a clothes hanger being used as a makeshift instrument for abortion is a stark reminder of the dire circumstances that women were forced to endure when they were unable to access safe and legal abortion services. This serves as a powerful critique of traditional gender roles and societal expectations of women, highlighting the need for greater gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchal structures that perpetuate gender stereotypes and norms.

Furthermore, the use of the clothes hanger as a symbol of resistance and activism underscores the importance of challenging power dynamics that have historically denied women the right to control their own bodies. Patriarchal structures and systems have sought to limit women’s agency and autonomy, denying them the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives. The clothes hanger symbolizes the violence and danger that women have faced as a result of these structures, and it serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for reproductive rights and gender equality.

The debate over abortion has often been framed in terms of a woman’s right to choose versus the protection of the fetus. However, this framing fails to acknowledge the broader social and political context in which the issue exists. The fight for reproductive rights is not just about individual choice, but also about challenging power dynamics and societal structures that seek to limit women’s agency and autonomy. The use of the clothes hanger as a symbol of resistance and activism underscores the importance of challenging these power dynamics and working towards a more equitable and just society.

The debate over abortion is one of the most critical issues in the ongoing fight for women’s rights. The landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 was a significant victory for reproductive rights, providing women with greater autonomy and control over their own bodies. However, the fight for reproductive rights has continued since then, with ongoing attempts to restrict access to safe and legal abortion through laws and policies that place undue burdens on women seeking to exercise their right to choose.

The use of the clothes hanger as a symbol of the ongoing struggle to protect and expand reproductive rights highlights the importance of challenging power dynamics and working towards a more just and equitable society for all. The debate over abortion is not simply about individual choice, but also about challenging broader societal structures and systems that have historically sought to limit women’s agency and autonomy.

Reproductive rights are human rights, and the right to access safe and legal abortion is a crucial component of those rights. The clothes hanger serves as a powerful reminder of the harrowing reality that many women once faced when seeking to terminate a pregnancy before the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It also highlights the ongoing struggles that women face in accessing safe and legal reproductive healthcare and the need to protect and expand reproductive rights.

In conclusion, the use of the clothes hanger as a symbol of the ongoing fight for reproductive rights emphasizes the need to challenge power dynamics, expand access to safe and legal reproductive healthcare, and work towards a more just and equitable society for all. The clothes hanger serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggles women face in their fight for reproductive autonomy, and the importance of protecting and expanding reproductive rights as a crucial component of human rights.

Sources:

“The Coat Hanger, Symbol of Dangerous, Pre-Roe Abortions, Is Back.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2014. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2014-mar-25-la-ol-the-coat-hanger-symbol-of-dangerous-preroe-abortions-is-back-20140324-story.html.

“The Wire Coat Hanger Symbolizes a Dark Era of Abortion Rights. Advocates Say It’s Time to Retire It | CBC News.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, July 5, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-abortion-coat-hanger-1.6508897.

“The Wire Coat Hanger Symbolizes a Dark Era of Abortion Rights. Advocates Say It’s Time to Retire It | CBC News.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, July 5, 2022. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-abortion-coat-hanger-1.6508897.

“The Coat Hanger, Symbol of Dangerous, Pre-Roe Abortions, Is Back.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2014. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2014-mar-25-la-ol-the-coat-hanger-symbol-of-dangerous-preroe-abortions-is-back-20140324-story.html.

“Unsafe Abortion: A Forgotten Emergency.” Doctors Without Borders – USA. Accessed April 21, 2023. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/unsafe-abortion-forgotten-emergency.

On June 25, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that challenges Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law. The law bans most abortions after 15 weeks (about 3 and a half months) of pregnancy, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. The case has generated significant attention and controversy, with many people viewing it as a potential threat to reproductive rights in the United States. 

At the heart of the controversy surrounding Dobbs v. Jackson is the issue of political polarization in America. The case highlights how deeply divided the country has become on issues of reproductive rights, with Democrats and Republicans taking distinctively different positions on the topic. The extremely polarized political environment in the United States has resulted in members of each party deeming their counterparts as threats to American values and ways of life.  

The political polarization in America is not a new phenomenon, but it has become more magnified in recent years. In the years following Roe v. Wade, abortion became a central issue in American politics. Carrying on to the 21^st century, abortion has become increasingly politicized, with politicians on both sides of the aisle using the issue to rally their base and gain political advantage.  

Republicans have generally taken a more conservative stance on abortion, seeking to restrict access to the procedure and overturn Roe v. Wade. Speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Alito stated, “procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.” [1] Democrats, on the other hand, have been more supportive of reproductive rights, advocating for access to safe and legal abortion and pushing back against efforts to restrict it. Liberal Attorney General Garland from the US Department of Justice said, “The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States.” [2] The political polarization surrounding Dobbs v. Jackson is evident in the reactions to the case from political leaders and interest groups.  

The roots of the political polarization on abortion go back decades. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. In the following years, political polarization surrounding abortion intensified with the rise of the so-called “culture wars.” The issue became increasingly tied to broader debates over morality, sexuality, and family values, with conservative politicians and religious leaders framing it as a central front in the fight against what they saw as the moral decay of American society. In response, pro-choice advocates worked to mobilize support for reproductive rights, framing the issue as a matter of women’s health and autonomy. They pointed to the dangers of unsafe abortions and argued that women should have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies and their lives. 

Even with all the controversy surrounding Roe v. Wade in the 21^st century, it quickly became a symbol of women’s reproductive rights and earned a reputation as an integral part of American cultural memory. In more recent years, the landmark case has been commemorated and remembered through popular culture, protests, museum exhibits, and political campaigns. For example, on the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Mitt Romney stated, “Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us.” [3] Throughout the 21^st century, Roe v. Wade was a central symbol for the ongoing debate about abortion and women’s reproductive rights, however, the polarization was always undermined by the decision given by the Supreme Court regarding Roe v. Wade. Despite fierce opposition from pro-life groups, Roe v. Wade remained in place, ensuring that women in the United States have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies.

The Dobbs v. Jackson case, however, is a sign of an ever changing and divided landscape which we call American politics. The recent ruling has raised concerns among advocates of reproductive rights, as it represents a potential threat to precedent set by Roe v. Wade that has become embedded in our cultural memory. Political polarization was evident not only in ideological debates but also in the responses of states to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. States that are predominantly Republican, such as Tennessee, Alabama, and Idaho, have implemented bans on abortion, while predominantly Democratic states like Oregon and New Mexico have imposed no restrictions. [4] [5] The disparity amongst states reactions to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court reflects the political polarization that has manifested in the United States.  

The return of power to individual states regarding abortion regulation leaves the future of reproductive rights uncertain. This is likely to maintain the current polarization on the issue, with advocates for both sides continuing to push for their positions. Dobbs v. Jackson marks a significant event in the timeline of women’s reproductive rights, which will be long remembered. However, it remains to be seen whether the impact of political polarization will persist in shaping the ongoing discussion surrounding reproductive health.

Abhiram Bolisetty

Sources

[1] “Explaining SCOTUS’s Abortion Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” League of Women Voters, 2021, https://www.lwv.org/blog/explaining-scotuss-abortion-decision-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization.

[2] “Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” U.S. Department of Justice, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-statement-supreme-court-ruling-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s.

[3] Romney, Mitt. “Statement on the 39th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.” The American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara, 22 Jan. 2012, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-mitt-romney-the-39th-anniversary-roe-v-wade.

[4] Murtha, Molly. “A Guide to Abortion Laws by State.” U.S. News & World Report, 14 Dec. 2021, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state.

[5] “Party Affiliation by State.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/.

[6] “Mississippi Abortion Ban: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.” Center for Reproductive Rights, 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/case/scotus-mississippi-abortion-ban/.

[7] “What Should Philosophers Do in Response to Dobbs? A Conversation with Ethicists.” Blog of the American Philosophical Association, 25 July 2022, https://blog.apaonline.org/2022/07/25/what-should-philosophers-do-in-response-to-dobbs-a-conversation-with-ethicists/.

[8] Martin, Jacquelyn. “Protesters Fill the Street in Front of the Supreme Court After the Court’s Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade in Washington.” Alamy, 24 June 2022, https://www.alamy.com/file-protesters-fill-the-street-in-front-of-the-supreme-court-after-the-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-in-washington-june-24-2022-support-for-abortion-rights-drove-women-to-the-polls-in-tuesdays-elections-but-for-many-the-issue-took-on-higher-meaning-part-of-an-overarching-concern-about-the-future-of-democracy-women-especially-democratic-women-were-more-likely-than-men-to-say-the-roe-v-wade-reversal-was-a-top-factor-in-their-voteap-photojacquelyn-martin-file-image505226478.html.

A slogan can be far more than a saying. When used wisely, a slogan can be the spark for productive debate. Slogans hold the power to pull citizens of vastly different backgrounds and beliefs to the ideological and political front lines. Slogans offer accessibility to the politically unengaged, compact complex arguments into an infectious format, and catalyze debate. Slogans are open access, democratic, artifacts of social consciousness and cultural memory in their most raw form.  

From their beginnings in the early 20^th century to the present day, pro-choice advocates and their organizations have made use of a variety of slogans: powerful, infectious rhetorical tools used to fight for, protect, and eventually mourn the loss of a woman’s right to an abortion in the United States. These slogans, along with the contexts of their usage, have evolved over time, from the days before 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision, to the roughly 50 years in which the decision was upheld, and to the present day in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson. How exactly have popular slogans been used by pro-choice organizations and activists throughout history? How has the collective cultural memory of these slogans shifted over time and how might they continue to evolve in the near future? 

Every Child a Wanted Child

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the pro-choice movement was driven by a dedicated, decentralized group of activists and organizations who sought to abolish restrictions on the practice [9]. It is key to note that during this time, groups faced opposition from both religious and medical organizations who viewed abortion as morally unjustifiable and deserving criminal association [2]. To combat these sentiments, pro-choice organizations sought highlight abortion’s supposed ability to solve social ills such as crime and poverty.  

This line of thought gave birth to one of the period’s most well-recognized slogans: “Every Child a Wanted Child.” 

This slogan, popularized by Planned Parenthood, painted a picture of the future that, on the surface, actually appealed to the period’s conservative social norms. The phrase implied abortion’s ability to eliminate out of wedlock births and therefore reinforce the nuclear family structure [10]. However, the cultural memory and employment of this slogan have evolved over time in line with shifts in attitude regarding the nuclear family since the 1970s. Today, criticism of the slogan’s implied condemnation of nontraditional family structures and out of wedlock births has led to a dramatic decrease in its use among contemporary abortion-rights activists [8]. 

Keep Abortion Legal | Keep Abortion Safe & Legal

After abortion was federally legalized by Roe, pro-choice proponents shifted rhetorical strategies over the coming decades, adopting slogans such as “Keep Abortion Safe and Legal” and “Keep Abortion Legal”. These slogans harnessed the memories of those who had lived during the Pre-Roe period. The generation of women who had first fought for the legalization of abortion feared a future regression where women would once again be forced to seek unsafe “back alley” abortions, putting their lives at serious risk [3]. It was this concern that these slogans sought to utilize.

Furthermore, these slogans aimed to establish abortion as a normative practice in American memory by placing emphasis on its legality and portraying abortion as something foundational to American society at large. However, since the overturning of Roe in 2022, this aspect of the phrases has been criticized [11]. Although powerful reminders of the dangers of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, the phrases were criticized by some within pro-choice circles for their defensive stance and narrow focus on the legality of abortion as opposed to a broader, more moralistic approach and justification [6]. 

My Body, My Choice

One such slogan that did seek a moral justification for abortion was “My Body, My Choice”, arguably the world’s most recognized slogan today.  

The phrase, which first rose to prominence during the 1970s, made a succinct moral argument in favor of abortion access grounded on the moral pillars of self-determination and bodily autonomy. This slogan coincided with the period’s feminist groundswell which asserted women’s individuality and independence from traditional gender frameworks surrounding the family, individual finances, and the workplace [7]. During its reign as the world’s most widely disseminated pro-choice slogan, “My Body, My Choice” has faced a variety of hurdles. For instance, some thinkers assert that the phrase is excessively individualistic, failing to recognize or convey the broader societal benefits of reproductive freedom [4]. More recently, during the pandemic, the slogan was even hijacked by those opposing vaccine mandates [1]. Despite these obstacles and its current, ongoing evolution, “My Body, My Choice” remains frequently employed by organizations and individuals. It remains to be seen how the cultural memory of “My Body, My Choice” will shift in the wake of the pandemic and in the post-Roe era.  

Then Dobbs happened. 

Abortion Is a Right | Abortion Is Healthcare

Just prior to the 50^th anniversary of the decision which established abortion as a legal right, the Supreme Court stripped away much of the federal protection Roe provided, affording state governments the ability to impose heightened restrictions on abortion access. In reaction to Dobbs and increased state restrictions, pro-choice advocates and organizations adapted, leaning more heavily into slogans such as “Abortion Is Healthcare” and “Abortion Is a Right”. These slogans aim to either emphasize the role of abortion as a necessary medical procedure or maintain the procedure’s status as a legally protected right, concepts that were engrained into the American consciousness during the Roe era [5].  

Given how current these slogans are, their integration into American cultural memory is actively evolving. For some, they read as concrete, truthful statements while for pro-life opponents, the slogans offer little persuasion, appearing either innately false or morally blind to the existence of the unborn. 

The slogans, phrases, and rhetorical tactics employed by pro-choice advocates have changed greatly over the past 75 years, reflecting American attitudes towards abortion, women’s reproductive rights, as well as broader social norms and expectations of the sexes. While some slogans such as “My Body, My Choice”, have remained poignant and frequently utilized to this day, others, such as “Every Child a Wanted Child” have increasingly been perceived as either outdated or even controversial. It is likely that the pro-choice movement and its slogans will continue to evolve and adapt to reflect and respond to changes in public opinion as well as the splintering and polarization of the American political and cultural landscape in the wake of Dobbs. The ways we remember the slogans of the past and present will too depend on the future of the broader American sociopolitical climate but also in the ways we actively choose to recall, analyze, and utilize them as integral parts of American cultural memory.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of slogans and pro-choice rhetoric will depend on their ability to reach those in the middle, mobilize supporters, and eventually have tangible impact on policy decisions related to reproductive rights. 

– Luke Manna

Works Cited:

[1] Bluth, Rachel. “’My Body, My Choice’: How Vaccine Foes Co-Opted the Abortion Rallying Cry.” NPR, NPR, 4 July 2022, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/04/1109367458/my-body-my-choice-vaccines.

[2] Holland, Jennifer L. “Abolishing Abortion: The History of the pro-Life Movement in America.” The American Historian, https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/.

[3] Koerth, Maggie. “What the History of Back-Alley Abortions Can Teach Us about a Future without Roe.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 2 June 2022, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-history-of-back-alley-abortions-can-teach-us-about-a-future-without-roe/.

[4] Lanphier, Elizabeth. “Is It Time to Retire the ‘My Body, My Choice’ Slogan?” FlaglerLive, 5 Aug. 2021, https://flaglerlive.com/body-my-choice-slogan/.

[5] Person, and Jan Wolfe Gabriella Borter. “Dueling Rallies as U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Abortion Rights Case.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 1 Dec. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rallies-planned-us-supreme-court-hears-high-stakes-abortion-challenge-2021-12-01/.

[6] Ruffin, Alexis Lora. “The Social Construction of Abortion.” VCU Scholars Compass , Virginia Commonwealth University, 1992, https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5798&context=etd.

[7] “Second Wave Feminism: Collections.” Gale, Bloomington Women’s Liberation Newsletter, https://www.gale.com/primary-sources/womens-studies/collections/second-wave-feminism.

[8] Stacey, Judith. “The New Family Values Crusaders: Dan Quayle’s Revenge.” The Free Library, Farlex, 25 July 1994, https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+new+family+values+crusaders%3A+Dan+Quayle%27s+revenge.-a015619132.

[9] Staggenborg, S. “The Survival of the pro-Choice Movement.” Journal of Policy History : JPH, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1995, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12346343/.

[10] Tarmann, Allison. “New Study Claims Abortion Is behind Decrease in Crime.” PRB, 1 Jan. 2000, https://www.prb.org/resources/new-study-claims-abortion-is-behind-decrease-in-crime/.

[11] Trumpy, Alexa J. “Fighting for Life: Pro-Woman Framing in the Pro-Life Movement .” OhioLINK, The Ohio State University , 2021, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1306280819&disposition=inline.

Images

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-holding-blank-protest-sign-643939558

https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101449609-img

https://www.alamy.com/file-in-this-april-5-1992-file-photo-pro-choice-demonstrators-gather-on-the-ellipse-near-the-white-house-in-washington-for-many-abortion-rights-activists-the-debate-over-health-care-reform-has-been-frustrating-even-disheartening-as-they-see-their-political-allies-on-the-defensive-over-the-issue-and-their-anti-abortion-rivals-on-the-attack-ap-photodoug-mills-file-image538490941.html?

[https://flic.kr/p/2eMf2mf]

[https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/for-justice-ginsburg-abortion-was-about-equality]

Before 1973, Article 1191 of the Texas Penal Code sets forth a punishment of two to five years for “Any person who would procure an abortion for a pregnant woman by, 1) designedly administering … any drug or medicine, 2) knowingly procuring to be administered … any drug or medicine, 3) using towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied [1].” Texas citizens were banned from receiving an abortion and doctors were banned from administering an abortion under the threat of a prison sentence. This was the law that was challenged and ruled unconstitutional in US Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade.

The story of Roe v. Wade starts with two lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. The two women were already seeking to bring a case to the Texas court about challenging the abortion law. All they needed was the right plaintiff. Their original plaintiff wasn’t “Jane Roe” but instead was a young married couple. The woman had neurochemical disorder was considered medically unfit to raise children. The couple was not pregnant, but wanted the right to a legal abortion should it become necessary. However, Weddington was unsure if the couple would work as plaintiffs in the case [2, page 39]. Firstly, abortion was allowed in Texas if it was deemed necessary to save the mother’s life. A judge could rule the abortion medically necessary due to the women’s neurochemical disorder, and grant the couple a right to an abortion, without ever changing the law in Texas. And second, the couple was not pregnant at the time, thus it could be said that they had no standing to bring the case to court, and the suit would be dismissed. In Weddington’s own words, they “needed to find a pregnant Texas woman who wanted an abortion and would be willing to be a plaintiff.” [3, page 53]

Enter Norma McCorvey, the women who would come to be known as “Jane Roe.” Norma McCorvey was born in Louisiana, and later moved to Texas. By this time Norma had already given birth to two children, who had been given up for adoption, and was pregnant with a third. She did not want the child and claimed the pregnancy made her both depressed and unemployable [4]. Norma was the ideal plaintiff as she was, young, poor, white and wanted an abortion for personal reasons, not medical.

In 1970, Weddington and Coffee filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey under the legal pseudonym “Jane Roe.” The defendant for this case was Dallas County District attorney Henry Wade, and thus Roe v. Wade officially began. The case was heard by a panel of three judges; two district judges, Sarah T. Hughes and William McLaughlin Taylor Jr, and one circuit court judge, Irving Loeb Goldberg. The judges ruled unanimously in favor of McCorvey, finding that the Texas law was unconstitutional as it violated the right to privacy. However, the panel of judges refused to grant McCorvey an injunction [5]. An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another. The DA Henry Wade said he would continue to prosecute people who chose to get an abortion in Texas, and since the court did not order an injunction against him, he was free to bring a legal case against McCorvey should she go through with the abortion, which would cost her significant money and stress. As such McCorvey ended up having the child, who would be given up for adoption [4].

Both sides filed for an appeal of the decision, Wade because the Texas law was deemed unconstitutional and Weddington because of the lack of injunction, which prevented McCorvey from getting an abortion. The case was on its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court chose to hear the case in order to reevaluate the precedence set by two previous rulings. The first ruling was a ruling in 1971,  United States v. Vuitch. This case considered the law of DC, which banned abortion except when the mother’s life or health was endangered. This case ruled that the word “health” in the DC law was not unconstitutionally vague, and upheld the DC law as constitutional. However, in Justice William O. Douglas dissent, he argued that abortion fell under the right to martial privacy and the limitation of family size. He also challenged the majority opinion of the vagueness of “health” stating that health could include the stigma of having an illegitimate child, anxiety from an unwanted pregnancy, the physical work of raising a child, the financial burden of children [6]. The second case was Younger v Harris. This case set a precedent which limited the occasions in which the Court could intervene in state’s prosecutions in First Amendment cases. The ruling essentially said that the federal government could not intervene to prevent state prosecution, as it was not in their jurisdiction. The court chose to hear Roe v. Wade as they assumed it would be an extension of Younger v. Harris and establish that the court did not have jurisdiction to stop Texas from prosecuting people who chose to have abortions [7].  

However, when Roe v. Wade was argued in court, Weddington argued not for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to stop the prosecution of women seeking abortion in Texas, but that the Texas ban on abortions itself was unconstitutional. She argued that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to deem laws unconstitutional and overturn them. Jay Floyd, now acting as the lawyer for Wade, spent considerable time arguing that the case should be dismissed as Roe did not have the standing to bring the case to court because by the time the case reached Washington, as she had given birth and no longer needed an abortion.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in McCorvey’s favor, deeming the Texas law unconstitutional and ruling that the Due Process Clause in the 14^th amendment of the US protected a fundamental “right to privacy” protecting a women’s right to get an abortion [1].

It is interesting how memory has transformed Roe v. Wade over time. Through most in America know the name and the ruling of the case, hardly anyone knows the history behind it. Norma McCorvey, the lawyers Sarah Wedding and Linda Coffee, or DA henry Wade are not well known or even connected to Roe v. Wade in collective memory. This site can serve as a kind of commemoration to the actual people who were involved in the case. Roe v. Wade also set an important precedent for the US. Precedents in law represent the process of the ongoing revision of rights, where precedents are either upheld and built upon or changed. That ongoing revision is a kind of processual memory, that represents how the laws and even the values of the country changed over time.

By: Mytri Vunnam

Works Cited

[1] “Roe v. Wade.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18. Accessed 21 Apr. 2023.

[2] Faux, Marian. Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision That Made Abortion Legal. Cooper Square Press, 2001.

[3] Higgins, Melissa, and Joseph W. Dellapenna. Roe v. Wade: Abortion and a Woman’s Right to Privacy. ABDO Pub., 2013.

[4] Solly, Meilan. “Who Was Norma McCorvey, the Woman behind Roe v. Wade?” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 24 June 2022, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/who-was-norma-mccorvey-the-woman-behind-roe-v-wade-180980311/.

[5] Prager, Joshua. “The Untold Dallas Origins of Roe v. Wade.” D Magazine, 27 Feb. 2023, https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2022/january/the-untold-dallas-origins-of-roe-v-wade/.

[6]  “United States v. Vuitch.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1970/84. Accessed 20 Apr. 2023.

[7] “Younger v. Harris.” Oyez,www.oyez.org/cases/1970/2. Accessed 21 Apr. 2023.