Month: April 2023

Pro-Choice Organizations Voice Opinion after Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade

One of the most important U.S. The Supreme Court cases in the world today are Roe vs Wade. This case provided women the ability to choose what to do with their bodies whenever it comes to pregnancy. However,  on June 24, 2022 everything changed. On this date the U.S. The Supreme Court overturned the decision set by Roe v Wade, this now puts the power in the hands of the state on what they want to do when it comes to the rights of abortion. Even though this is a supreme court case, there are a lot of politics that are around this issue of abortion. Pro Choice Organizations are liberal usually are democrats. As soon as this decision came out every major pro choice organization quickly reacted to this. On the day of the decision people all across the United States went to the streets to protest the decision. For example one of the largest pro choice organizations “Planned Parenthood” came out with a statement on the day that Roe v Wade was overturned. In their statement they talked about the decisions being “devastating” , and creating “a barrier to health care” [1]. This shows what a significant impact this decision had on Planned Parenthood. 

Other national “pro choice” organizations also had strong reactions to the overturning of the Roe v Wade case. For example,  the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL)  Pro Choice in America came out and reacted immediately the day that the decision came out by officially saying on their website that they: “ Condemns a U.S. Supreme Court Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade”[2]. What this can show about the organizations is that they think the ruling of this decision was a very bad decision on the Supreme Court’s part. This was a bad decision because it means that women aren’t allowed to do what they want with their bodies and they can’t make the choice that they want too. This not only says what they feel about the decision but it also says a lot of things about how they feel about it politically.  

The Center of Reproductive Rights is one of the largest organizations that have fought for women’s reproductive rights. Under the main webpage they have images of protesters and also they have captions about the abortion pills. They have captions because the next thing that can be potentially taken away is the abortion pill. The caption reads “Medication Abortion Under Threat In The U.S.”. They are trying to highlight that the U.S are changing the rules on accessing these pills. Also there is a limitation on reproductive rights[3].  

There were many protests that were held nationwide in the United States right after the Roe v Wade decision was made. For example, according to an article in The Guardian by Poppy Noor, they marched on the 50th anniversary of the Roe v Wade supreme court decision that made abortion a constitutional right in 1973[4]. This can showshow how the original decision of Roe v Wade made a big impact on the memory of people in America.  memory of America. People coming out to rally can show how impactful this court case decision was to the significance of this and how it has been added to the collective memory. This decision impacted people’s everyday lives and because of this impact, 50 years later it’s a strong part of the collective memory. This is a strong point in the women’s collective memory because of how important of a decision it was to women’s rights in America. Having this court case overturned will have a significant impact on America’s cultural memory moving forward. It will stay in our memory for the people who are pro choice as one of the saddest days in history. 

Another article that talks about the protests that came after the court case was overturned shows how important this decision was especially for people who are pro choice. This shows the fight people were willing to do for their voice to be heard and stand up for what they believe in. The president of Planned Parenthood came out and talked about how devastating this decision is. According to an article by Morgan Smith, the CEO of planned parenthood stated that “The Supreme Court has now officially given politicians permission to control what we do with our bodies deciding that we can no longer be trusted to determine the course for our own lives.”(Smith 2022)[5]. This shows her reaction which will become a part of the collective memory not just for Roe v Wade but for any kind of issue dealing with abortion and women’s reproductive health. This can also show viewers how political this case is to society today. Looking at the protest since this case was overturned shows people’s reactions to it across America.  The article titled  “Protest spread across the US after the Supreme Court overturns the constitutional right to abortion” by Kelly McCleary and Holly Yan, from CNN says that people went out to protest and 20 people were taken into custody and arrested in New York[6]. The collective memory of Roe v Wade lives within all these organizations and their reactions. It can also be seen within these protests by people who believe that the rights of women deciding whether or not to keep a baby should be decided by the one who is going to give birth instead of letting politicians decide for them.

Works Cited:

1. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-southern-new-england/newsroom/planned-parenthood-of-southern-new-england-reacts-to-u-s-supreme-court-overturning-roe-v-wade
2. https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2022/06/24/naral-pro-choice-america-condemns-u-s-supreme-court-decision-overturning-roe-v-wade/
3. https://reproductiverights.org/

4. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/womens-march-2023-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights

5. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/planned-parenthood-ceo-on-roe-ruling-freedoms-are-on-the-line.html

6. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-monday/index.html

By Christian Hamilton

Introduction

In June 2022, the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization resulted in the landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the monumental Supreme Court case that stated that the right to abortion was protected by the US Constitution. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, abortion has become more topical than ever, with several states racing to enact laws that would ban the practice. With the country divided on how permissive abortion should be, it was one of the greatest factors for voters heading into the 2022 midterm elections. This post is designed to be an in depth look into the varying laws regarding abortion in the United States as a result of the overruling of Roe. The specificities of how permissible abortion is differs throughout almost every state, and I believe that on a greater scale, it is a testament to the history and culture throughout the distinct regions of America.

Overview and Definitions of Abortion Laws in a Post-Dobbs Climate

In the most general of terms, abortion in the United States is one of two things: protected or not protected. This means that states either have abortion rights codified into law or not, which can include an unprotected, hostile, or illegal status. States such as California, New York, Connecticut, and Illinois are in the “expanded access” category, where the right to abortion is protected and other laws have been created to allow for additional access to abortion care¹. Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and Maine are examples of protected states that are more restrictive than the “expanded access” states due to the limitations on the access of care¹. There are currently 23 states in the country that protect abortion rights¹. The other 27 fall under the not protected category, which is more diverse in its types of policies. Virginia, New Mexico, and New Hampshire are the three states where abortion is accessible, but is not under legal protection¹. Neither New Hampshire and New Mexico have bans on when an abortion can be procured, but in Virginia, it is only permissible until the third trimester². There are several states, such as North Carolina, Utah, Georgia, and Pennsylvania that are described as “hostile”¹. This means that abortion is accessible but is not legally protected and lawmakers in these states have expressed the desire to prohibit the practice entirely. They are vulnerable to the revival of old abortion bans or the formation of new ones. Finally, 12 states, mostly in the south, have made abortion completely illegal and with criminal penalties. Many of these states had trigger bans go into effect after the Dobbs ruling, which enacted laws that were made after Roe in the case of its nullification. Abortion in the United States is a highly divisive subject, as shown by the almost halfway split between protected and not protected states.

Into the Specifics

As mentioned in the previous section, there are 12 states that have near-total abortion bans, with the common exception being a life-saving procedure of the mother. However, not all of these bans are the same. For example, West Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Missouri have laws that completely ban abortion except to save the life of the mother². Others, like Oklahoma and Idaho, are slightly less restrictive, with exceptions for cases of rape and incest². Tennessee and Kentucky do not make these same exceptions, but do allow the pregnancy to be terminated if it will prevent the serious impairment of a major bodily function or organ². Louisiana is the only state of those with near-total bans that allows an abortion when the pregnancy is “medically futile”². Even though there are currently only 14 states where abortion is unavailable (North Dakota and Wisconsin allow the practice but do not have clinics at this time), this number is subject to change as state governments shift³. There are several states that have attempted to enact trigger bans or initiate new legislation regarding abortion bans that have been blocked by state Supreme Courts or governors. Indiana, Wyoming, and Utah are all examples of states that have tried to enforce near-total bans but have been blocked due to legal challenges³. These laws and injunctions are not permanent, they can be reversed depending on the political party that has majority in the state legislature and judicial system. Abortion is an issue that is entwined with partisanship, which comes from the culture of certain geographical regions in the United States.

Effects of Historical Partisanship and Geography in the Aftermath of Dobbs

This may come as a surprise, but Connecticut was the first state to codify an abortion law – and it wasn’t for the practice’s legal protection⁴. The law punished any person who took poison with the intent to cause “the miscarriage of any woman, then being quick with child”⁴. In the colonial days of America, abortion was not the controversial issue it is today. Abortion laws were nonexistent, and it was only frowned upon due to the implication of illicit premarital sex. Due to the extreme risks of childbirth and lack of contraception, abortion was generally not a condemned practice until after the mother could feel the fetus moving in the uterus. In fact, anti-abortion legislation was much more prevalent in New England in the mid-20^th century than in the South⁵. Catholics in the Northeast were fervently against abortion due to the belief that life began with conception⁵. Southern Evangelicals during this time were not morally concerned by abortion and viewed it as a “Catholic cause”⁵. However, this view shifted after this group realized the large number of unmarried women traveling to New York to have abortions. Their aversion to women’s rights and the feminist movement caused many evangelical leaders to find “new meanings” in Bible verses that they believed to be about abortion. Since white evangelicals are mainly located in the South, many legislators followed this religion and therefore were able to make more restrictive abortion bans. Hand in hand with the Republican party, the South became the “epicenter of anti-abortion fervor” that we know it to be today⁵.

Abby Chester

Citations

1. “Abortion Laws by State.” Center for Reproductive Rights, 6 Jan. 2023, https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/.
2. Haines, Julia, et al. “State Abortion Laws in the Wake of Roe v. Wade – US News.” US News, 14 Apr. 2023, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state.
3. Nash, Elizabeth, and Isabel Guarnieri. “Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do so: A Roundup.” Guttmacher Institute, 10 Jan. 2023, https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/six-months-post-roe-24-us-states-have-banned-abortion-or-are-likely-do-so-roundup.
4. Blakemore, Erin. “The Complex Early History of Abortion in the United States.” History & Culture , National Geographic, 11 Apr. 2023, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states.
5. Varney, Sarah. “Why Is the South the Epicenter of Anti-Abortion Fervor?” KFF Health News, 3 Aug. 2021, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/qa-why-south-is-anti-abortion-epicenter/.
6. Published by Statista Research Department. “Abortion: Support by Party and Level of Legalization U.S. 2022.” Statista, Statista Research Department, 30 Sept. 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1079467/abortion-support-party-level-legalization-us/.

Throughout history, there have been a plethora of different perspectives on abortion rights that pro-choice groups were using as their main cause. The analysis of how pro-choice groups chose to advocate for abortion rights is telling of history and what was prioritized at the moment within what feminists were seeking to achieve. Roe v Wade was a landmark decision in U.S. history in which the supreme court issued a decision protecting women’s rights in choosing to have an abortion. This decision was fought for through years of feminists advocating for abortion rights and using strategic protests, strikes, and through many other public demonstrations to gain support. The long road to Roe v. Wade is evidence that abortion was a topic of discussion prior to the case decision in January 1973. Recently abortion rights have once again become a topic of discussion because the case was overturned in June 2022. Modern feminists are now required to fight to regain these rights, but how do their strategies differ or remain the same from pro-choice groups throughout history?

In the 1960s abortion rights were not initially part of what feminists believed in and advocated for until their perspective of abortion changed. Feminists started to see abortion as an essential part of women’s equality in society and began advocating for the decriminalization of abortion from that point onward. The founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Betty Friedan, was one of the first leaders to state explicitly her support for the decriminalization of abortion and invited other feminists to accept this cause as part of their fight for equality between genders in society. [2] Friedan traveled to Chicago to attend and speak at the First National Conference on Abortion Laws where she went on to say:

“My only claim to be here, is to our belated recognition, if you will, that there is no freedom, no equality, no full human dignity and personhood possible for women until we assert and demand the control over our own bodies, over our own reproductive process… 

… 

…Women are denigrated in this country, because women are not deciding the conditions of their own society and their own lives. Women are not taken seriously as people. So this is the new name of the game on the question of abortion: that women’s voices are heard.” [2]

This powerful speech had a lasting impact as it states that women do not have full human rights until they have the power to govern their own reproductive system and are capable of making decisions about when they choose to bear a child. The major argument they used to advocate for abortion rights at that time was to make people aware of how society was set up in a manner that prevented women from entering an environment and being met with the same opportunities because they were a caregiver. 

After Roe v Wade was passed, women had their rights to safe abortions protected, however, women of color still had inadequate access to safe abortions. This led to the development of movements and groups like the National Black Women’s Health Project (1984) and Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice to develop. In 1984, the National Black Women’s Health Project successfully redefined the right to have a child, the right not to have a child, and the right to parent one’s existing child by putting these rights on an equal pedestal. [1] The Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice later added to the definition of reproductive justice that it is necessary to allow abortions based on the physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women in efforts to completely achieve the protection of women’s human rights. [1] 

Although these aforementioned beliefs are not lacking in the slightest in modern feminism as they attempt to regain abortion rights after Roe v Wade was overturned, there has been an evolution in how access to safe abortions is vital to women’s success. Now feminists focus on viewing an immense set of circumstances and empathizing with the need for a person to have access to an abortion. [4] There is no longer a need to see abortion through one lens, instead, feminists voice the many stories of women who either needed a medical abortion or an abortion based on the circumstances they found themselves to be in. Many women who seek abortion do so because of varying reasons–they may not be able to financially, emotionally, safely, or realistically support a child’s needs. Without access to safe abortions, many women may find themselves in a predicament they would not be able to handle as best they could at a later time in their life. 

With that being said, many women also choose to undergo an abortion for selective reasoning. Many women have undergone an abortion after finding out the fetus may be born with a disability. Although some women may see this as an attempt to “improve the overall quality of life”, other women choose to abort a fetus with a disability because they would be unable to provide for the needs associated with the disability. [3] Although it is up to discussion whether some of these motives may be ableist, does that give society the ability to strip women of their access to safe abortions?

Overall, there is a noticeable evolution in feminists’ belief that safe abortions are vital to women’s human rights. Before Roe v. Wade was passed many feminists viewed abortion rights to be equal to human rights since it is reflective of a woman’s control over her own reproductive system. While after Roe v. Wade was overturned the feminist view on abortion evolved to take a more empathetic and understanding approach to a woman’s financial, mental, and physical state when seeking an abortion.

Hector Valadez-Garcia

Works Cited

[1] Fried, Marlene Gerber. “Reproductive Rights Activism in the Post-Roe Era.” Reproductive Rights Activism in the Post-Roe Era, American Journal of Public Health, 2013, ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301125. 

[2] Greenhouse, Linda, and Reva B. Siegel. “Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions About Backlash.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 120, no. 8, 2011, pp. 2028–87. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41149586. Accessed 19 Apr. 2023.

[3] Schoen, Johanna. “Reconceiving Abortion: Medical Practice, Women’s Access, and Feminist Politics before and after ‘Roe v. Wade.’” Feminist Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, 2000, pp. 349–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3178538. Accessed 19 Apr. 2023.

[4] Swift, Jayne. “Feminist Futures: Reimagining Arguments for Abortion.” The Gender Policy Report, 5 July 2022, genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/feminist-futures-reimagining-arguments-for-abortion/.

Fifty years ago the nine Supreme Court Justices made a landmark decision that would verify the right to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This verified its inclusion within the framework of the right to liberty afforded by the Constitution. The decision was not unanimous and even the opinions of the majority differed greatly while still arriving at the same conclusion. To understand the importance and continued debate over this landmark decision it is valuable to examine the opinions of the majority and dissenting.

The case began in 1970 when Jane Roe, now known to be Norma McCorvey, began a legal battle with Henery Wade the then district attorney of Dallas, Texas. Roe and her constituents argued that the right to an abortion was absolute and should be able to be performed at any time under any circumstances of the sole volition of the woman seeking it. They claimed that the laws introduced in Texas infringed on multiple rights afforded by the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourteenth Amendment [8]. The state of Texas argued they have “an interest in safeguarding the health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting prenatal life” [4]. The state also argued that a fetus should be recognized as a person and thus would be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This would imply that personhood began at conception. This argument was particularly continuous during deliberations. When creating this argument it was clear that the state had settled on a particular definition of life that was chosen in their best interests. [8] The majority opinion that was provided following the case stated “We do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.” [4] The court laid out a framework that they felt would balance the state’s interest to “protect life” and the personal right to privacy. This framework had varying levels of permissiveness for state intervention in abortions based on trimester. [8]

The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun. This opinion was to represent the justifications and framework laid out by himself and the six other justices that made up the majority. Blackmun’s remarks on the case cited the precedent that was set by Griswold v. Connecticut eight years prior. The case notably overturned a Connecticut law that was set to prohibit the use or encouragement of contraceptives [2]. In the majority opinion that was given during the Griswold trial Justice Douglas stated that the law was in violation of the “right to marital privacy” [4]. Blackmun stated that this established a right to privacy that is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” [4]. This decision echoed the Due Process clause set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment. Just a year prior to the decision on Roe the fourteenth amendment’s relationship with the right to privacy was qualified during the case of Board of Regents v. Roth. The majority opinion of this case stated “In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty’ must be broad indeed” [9].

The dissenting opinion was held by two justices, Byron White and Willam Rehnquist. White felt that the framework that was laid out by the justices making up the majority was incredibly contradictory, stating, “If the state had an interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus” — which, he believed, the state did — “that interest existed, and was equally strong, throughout the pregnancy” [4]. In general, both justices held that the court had made an overreach in making a ruling on “extending constitutional protections to a right not found in the Constitution” [4]. In a rather blatantly partisan comment by Justice White, he stated, “The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries” [4]. In addition to these critiques, Rehnquist also argued that much of the “right to privacy” that the majority’s opinions relied on lay in the fourth amendment and was solely related to illegal search and seizure and had no implications on abortions. [5] In the conclusion of their opinion, it was clear that they thought the decision of the regulation and restriction of abortion should be left up to the state.

Last year the precedent set by Roe was overturned. This was a moment that those who have been supporting Roe from the beginning were hoping would never happen. The contrast between the majority and the dissenting in last year’s case, Jackson v. Dobbs is stark compared to the 1973 decision. Justice Samuel Alito stated, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” [3]. The majority opinion written by Justice Alito was reminiscent of the critiques made by the two dissenting justices from the original decisions. He raised questions about the fourteenth amendment arguing that the rights protected in the Due Process Clause had to be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” [3].

Those that have lived through both the birth of Roe and the subsequent overturning have a unique perspective on how memory has played out. An article written in the Washington Post highlights the stories of the aforementioned. Due to the divisiveness of the decision and at times vitriolic passion exhibited by both sides of the argument the two social groups’ collective memory is distinct. For some, it goes back to childhood. One woman interviewed, Suzanne Brunzie remembers seeing girls being taken to maternity homes to complete their unwanted pregnancies so they did not burden the communities in which they lived, were educated, and worked. She said, “I remember thinking out there in the world, there’s got to be thousands and thousands of women who deserve an alternative.” [1]. As debate and opinion continue around the Roe and Dobb’s decisions collective memory will start to shift. For a new generation, the opinions put forth by the Justice in the case heard a year ago will be the lens through which they view the topic of abortion and women’s healthcare. This new lens will provide a new perspective and a platform for many fighting the fight that those before them did in the seventies.

– Spencer Hood

Works Cited

[1] Branigin, Anne. “Coming of Age during Roe v. Wade: Women Tell Us How They Saw the Moment Then and Now.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 May 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/01/21/womens-memories-roe-decision-1973/.

[2] Eisen, Lauren-Brooke, et al. “Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases.” Brennan Center for Justice, 19 Apr. 2023, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases#:~:text=Justices%20William%20Rehnquist%20and%20White,such%20as%20protecting%20a%20fetus.

[3] Gerstein, Josh, and Alexander Ward. “Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.” POLITICO, 3 May 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473.

[4] Konkoly, Toni. “The Supreme Court. Law, Power & Personality. Famous Dissents. Roe v. Wade (1973): PBS.” The Supreme Court. Law, Power & Personality. Famous Dissents. Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS, Dec. 2006, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_roe.html.

[5] Lewis, Jone Johnson. “The Historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision.” ThoughtCo, ThoughtCo, 6 Feb. 2021, https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244.

[6] “Roe v. Wade.” Center for Reproductive Rights, 8 Dec. 2022, https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/.

[8] Temme, Laura. “Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need To Know.” Findlaw, 17 Mar. 2023, https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v–wade-case-summary–what-you-need-to-know.html#arguments.

[9] United States Supreme Court. “BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).” Findlaw, 1972, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/408/564.html.

Image and Captions

[10] Fine, Camille. “Roe v. Wade Overturned: What Protests for Abortion Rights, Anti-Abortion Looked like in the 1970s.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 27 June 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/politics/2022/06/27/roe-v-wade-original-protest-photos/7746360001/.

[11] Treisman, Rachel. “The Original Roe v. Wade Ruling Was Leaked, Too.” NPR, NPR, 3 May 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096097236/roe-wade-original-ruling-leak.

In pre-Roe days, abortion was illegal in nearly all states. A handful of liberal states like California had some exemptions for legal abortions when a woman’s life or health were at stake, but the vast majority of American women did not have access to safe and legal abortions. In order to ensure that abortion remained illegal, many states adopted “trigger laws” which stated that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, the existing abortion ban in that state would automatically go into effect.

Why is it that the southern region of the United States represents the vast majority of abortion bans? Put plainly, it is largely due to the strong influence of conservative and religious beliefs in these states, which have historically been more resistant to the legalization of abortion. Many of these states have enacted these laws in order place restrictions on abortion access that include, mandatory waiting periods, counseling sessions, and parental notification requirements. The concentration of abortion bans in the southern states reflects a broader cultural and political divide between more conservative regions and those that tend to be more progressive on social issues. In order to gain a better understanding of this idea, this article will examine abortion policy in two southern states that have gone different directions in the post Roe era.

Texas

The state of Texas has a history of abortion bans that dates back to the 19th century. The first major piece of anti abortion legislation, however, came to be in 1925 with the aptly named, 1925 Laws. The 1925 Laws makes it a crime to perform an abortion, except when the mother’s life is at risk. The penalty for breaking this law is 2 to 5 years in prison. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 deemed this law unconstitutional, but it was never wiped off the books. On Friday, July 1, 2022, the Texas State Supreme Court ruled that the century old law can be enforced.

Due to the 1925 Laws technically being state laws that predated Roe, prosecutors can hold abortion providers criminally liable before the Dobbs decision goes into effect.

Texas Legislature has also used “trigger laws” to expedite the enforcement of the Dobbs decision. “Trigger Laws” are laws that go into effect once a certain thing happens. That certain thing “triggers” it into enforceable law. In 2021, Texas Legislature passed a bill that contained a “trigger” which stated that once Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, an abortion ban would follow 30 days after.

Section 2 of this Act takes effect, to the extent permitted, on the 30th day after:
(1) The issuance of a United States Supreme Court judgement in a decision overruling, wholly or partly, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S 833 (1992), thereby allowing the states of the United States to prohibit abortion. [2]

Texas has a complex and contentious history regarding abortion policy, dating back to 1857 when the state first criminalized the procedure. In recent years, Texas has become increasingly hostile to abortion rights, enacting some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country. This has led to a deep division among Texans, with some arguing for the protection of reproductive rights and others advocating for greater restrictions on abortion. Modern abortion policy in Texas has shown the relevancy of memory as it relates to abortion and other issues that have come into question in recent years. Pro life advocates support the 1925 Laws while those that are pro choice represent a widely shared sentiment that those century old laws are outdated and unconstitutional. Despite a dramatic shift in how society views abortion and the right to access it, Texas remains at the tip of the spear of anti abortion legislature and abortion bans.

Virginia

The state of Virginia, on the other hand, does not currently have an abortion ban as strict as the one in Texas. In 2020, Virginia repealed its decades-old abortion restrictions, including a mandatory waiting period, ultrasound, and counseling requirements. Virginia now allows abortions up to the point of fetal viability, which is around 26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Conservatives, including Governor Glenn Youngkin, and pro life supporters have not gone quietly on their push for abortion restrictions in the state. Since the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Virginia Legislature has rejected three bills regarding abortion. One of those, which was supported by the Governor himself,  “…would have banned abortion after 15-weeks unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or would “result in the death of the woman or substantially and irreversibly impair one or more of such woman’s major bodily functions, not including psychological or emotional conditions.””[3]

How is it that two historically conservative states have such different abortion policy?

Similar to Texas and other southern states, Virginia had laws in place that made abortions illegal in almost all cases. There is evidence, however, that abortions were easily accessible during the decades before Roe in Virginia which may partially explain why Virginia has become more progressive compared to Texas. Ned Oliver’s article quotes Richmond, VA doctors from 1962 describing abortions, “the procedure was easily obtainable despite the fact that the state only permitted the procedure in cases in which it was necessary to save the life of the mother.”[4] Another doctor stated that, “Anyone able to pay for an abortion can get it.”[5] Not everyone had the ability to get abortions as shown in the quote, and these procedures were dangerous as they were not done by licensed professionals. Numerous examples of these providers of illegal abortions being prosecuted explains why licensed practitioners typically did not perform these procedures. However, botched abortions leading to the death of pregnant women most likely had more influence over legislatures in a slightly more progressive state like Virginia, versus a very conservative state like Texas.

A split state legislature in Virginia may prevent legal abortions from being expressly protected by state law until a majority progressive legislature is able to codify it. However, it is still legal through the second trimester unless necessary to save the life of the mother. In Texas, there is a complete ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. In order for Texas to attain either semi or full abortion legality in the future, more progressive lawmakers must gain traction and momentum which will be difficult in such a conservative region.

Memory plays a significant role in how people in Texas and Virginia view abortion. In Texas, the passage of Senate Bill 8 or the Texas Heartbeat Act of 2021, which prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, may evoke memories of the state’s long history of restrictive abortion laws. Similarly, the recent repeal of Virginia’s longstanding abortion restrictions and Governor Youngkin’s efforts to bring them back may bring up memories of a time when women’s access to abortion was limited. For some individuals, memories of personal experiences with abortion may also shape their views on the issue. These memories can be powerful and deeply emotional, influencing how individuals perceive the current political climate surrounding abortion.

Wilson Glasgow

Citations

[1] Despart, Z. (2022, July 2). Texas can enforce 1925 abortion ban, State Supreme Court says. KERA News. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2022-07-02/texas-can-enforce-1925-abortion-ban-state-supreme-court-says

[2]87(R) HB 1280 – enrolled version – Bill Text. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB01280F.htm

[3]15-Week Abortion Ban Fails to Pass in Virginia. Americanbar.org. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/section-news/2023/february/15-week-abortion-ban-fails-to-pass-in-va/

[4][5]Oliver, N. (2022, July 19). Prosecutions, injuries and deaths: Abortion in Virginia pre-roe. Axios. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2022/07/19/prosecutions-injuries-deaths-abortion-virginia-pre-roe

Library, T. S. L. (n.d.). Guides: Abortion laws: Trigger laws. Trigger Laws – Abortion Laws – Guides at Texas State Law Library. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/trigger-laws#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20Texas%20Legislature,Supreme%20Court%20overturning%20Roe%20v.

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. But not really. The reality today is that words can hurt more than ever. Words that some are comfortable with may be extremely offensive to others. Different groups of people interpret different forms of language in a variety of ways. The abortion debate is no different. There is no doubt that the topic of abortion has been brought up at one of your most recent family dinners, parties, or social gatherings, and most of the time, when abortion is brought up, there is some form of discourse on these issues. A crucial part of the debate is being able to understand the common terms being discussed so that one can fully comprehend the debate at hand before forming their own opinions. People have different understandings of the definitions of words surrounding when abortion take place, such as when the baby develops a heartbeat, when it can feel pain, and when it is “acceptable” in the eyes of different groups of people to have an abortion.

The main controversy surrounding the abortion debate always circles back to when in the pregnancy is it acceptable (if at all) to have an abortion. Factors in this debate revolve around the development of the baby in the mother’s womb. Fertilization, also referred to as conception, is the action of a male sperm uniting with a female egg to form a zygote. This process marks the beginning of pregnancy. From there, it takes about five or six days for the zygote to change into a blastocyst, which is a microscopic clump of cells. The innermost group of cells within that clump forms the embryo, which is defined as “an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development… approximately the second to eighth week after fertilization.” This formation process of the zygote into the embryo is called embryogenesis. [2] These words have very neutral connotations and are often used in the abortion debate when presenting facts about babies. Connotation starts to come in when the word “fetus” is brought about in discussion. A fetus is an offspring of a human in the prenatal (before birth) development stage. [5] The word fetus typically comes with a negative connotation, because many pro-choice people argue that a fetus is not yet a baby, and therefore it is less morally wrong to abort it. On the other hand, many pro-life people argue that fetus is simply a Latin word that means “baby,” and that aborting the offspring in this stage is still fundamentally wrong. In Latin, the word fetus means “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young.” The word fetus has become a very political and polarized term in the last fifty years then the abortion debate has truly taken off. Pro-choice people tend to refer to the unborn offspring as a fetus, whereas pro-life tend to refer to the offspring as a baby during pregnancy.

This terminology is applied when people discuss and debate when (if at all) different groups of people believe that abortion is morally justifiable. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a baby in the womb develops the nerves that can send signals of pain to the brain at about twenty-four weeks after conception, meaning that a baby is able to feel pain roughly six months into the pregnancy. [1] However, the fetus develops a heartbeat – the ability to pulsate its own blood into its body – three weeks after conception. These terms are used in the abortion debate to argue back and forth about whether the offspring is far enough into its pre-natal development to abort it. [2] There are political views and extremes on both sides of the spectrum that use this language in their argument. Some conservatives, particularly those with extreme beliefs and values, argue that life begins at conception, and that the baby should not be aborted once the egg is fertilized. [4] They believe that abortion is murder, and Republicans proposed bills to Congress that back their viewpoints, such as the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This legislation would make it so that emergency care to save the life of the aborted baby would be required, as well as criminal punishment for those medical professionals who refuse life-saving care for the child. [3] On the other end of the political spectrum, some liberals, especially the more extreme ones, claim that a fetus is not yet a baby until the moment it is born, and therefore support abortion in the weeks and days right up until the day the child is born. They claim that abortion is not murder, and do not take kindly to being called “baby-murderers.” Many people are very offended by this term, and it can be extremely detrimental for people going through an abortion to hear this from others. At the same time, many people who believe that all life is precious and should be preserved became upset when abortion became legal in the first place. [4]

Although abortion is legal in the United States, people who kill a pregnant women are charged with a double-homicide, which begs the question: when is abortion considered murder? Some say always. Some say never. The majority of people in the United States do not fit either of the two political extremes in the abortion debate, which is why it is more crucial than ever that young people truly understand the terms and connotations involved in the abortion debate as they learn and begin to formulate their own opinions.

Caden Linnert

Works Cited

[1] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Facts Are Important: Gestational Development and Capacity for Pain.” ACOG. Wolters Kluwer Health, 2021. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain. 

[2] Cherry, Kendra. “How a Baby Develops during the Prenatal Period.” Edited by Carly Snyder. Verywell Mind. Dotdash Meredith, March 11, 2023. https://www.verywellmind.com/stages-of-prenatal-development-2795073. 

[3] John Thune Public Relations Team. “Thune, Lankford Introduce Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” U.S. Senator John Thune, February 1, 2023. https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=A8D4FBFB-E768-40E2-B568-85AE087138A0#:~:text=The%20Born%2DAlive%20Abortion%20Survivors%20Protection%20Act%20would%20require%20life,care%20to%20born%20alive%20infants. 

[4] Gary C. Leedes, Liberalism, Republicanism and the Abortion Controversy, 35 Vill. L. Rev. 571 (1990). https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol35/iss3/2 

[5] National Cancer Institute. “NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms.” National Cancer Institute. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed April 13, 2023. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/fetus.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, more commonly remembered as the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, had a document leaked on May 2, 2022 [1]. This document was a majority opinion draft written by Justice Samuel Alito and disclosed the fact that the Supreme Court had plans to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey [2]. In the leaked opinion draft Justice Alito stated that the US Constitution offers no implicit protection to abortion and that the cases of both Roe and Casey do not meet the requirements to be protected under the fourteenth amendment [3]. The document even went as far as to state that the Roe v. Wade case “was egregiously wrong from the start” [2]. The Dobbs v. Jackson case was a monumental case in Supreme Court history and the leaked draft only added to the publicity that the case received.

For as monumental of a case as the Dobbs v. Jackson case was the leaked draft is equally as historically significant. The leak represents the first time that a US Supreme Court opinion was leaked to the public. There have been other information leaks in US Supreme Court history, including the leak of the Roe v. Wade outcome in 1972, but never before has a Court Opinion draft been leaked [2]. This leak has caused the Supreme Court to fear that the public will lose trust in the court, forcing them to think of new measures to prevent future leaks.

The Dobbs v. Jackson leak was initially released by Politico, a German political newspaper, and was announced as legitimate by Chief Justice John Roberts [2]. It is unknown who leaked the information to Politico, but there have been many theories on the topic. It is possible that the document was leaked by a court clerk or a court justice, the individual could have been left-leaning or right-leaning politically. Without knowing who this individual is it is difficult to discern what their intention for leaking the draft could be. However, no matter the identity of the individual they could be facing extreme consequences for their role in the leak, ranging from losing their job to legal consequences including impeachment [2]. 

The matter of determining why this document was leaked depends greatly upon who the individual that leaked it was, particularly what their political stance was. If the individual was conservative-leaning, there are a number of possibilities for why they may have leaked the document. The most obvious and logical being that the individual was attempting to prevent the five Justices voting to overturn Roe v. Wade from changing their stance. Another possibility is that a conservative Court Justice may have been attempting to lessen the public outrage from such a monumental decision by preparing the public for the coming decision [2]. The former is more likely, but it is impossible to be certain as the individual may have had other unknown intentions. 

If the individual who leaked the document was politically left-leaning, their intentions for doing so would likely be entirely different. Perhaps their goal was to create public outrage and form some distrust of the US Supreme Court. It may even have been a strategy to buy time for those who opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade. For example, this could have potentially given the opposing side time to protest for federal legislation that would have combated the effects of the ruling [2]. Many favor the theory of a left-leaning individual having been the leaker because it makes the most sense that someone who opposed the ruling would threaten it in such a way.

There were many opinions associated with the leaked draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion. Similarly to the opinions on the ruling itself, these opinions were very polarized based on political viewpoints. For example, Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democratic politician, stated “How dare they tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?” [2] Whereas Former Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican politician, responded to this statement with “Since 1973, generations of mothers enduring heartbreak and loss that can last a lifetime.” [2] Most left-leaning individuals were commending the leaker some even going as far as to nominate them a “hero.” [2] In opposition, right-leaning individuals tended to agree with the supreme court that the leak was a huge breach of trust.

Memory played a key role in the Dobbs v. Jackson case, the leak, and the opinions associated with each. The case shows the way in which memory can be selective. For example, the Supreme Court Justices and those opposed to the leak declared the leak as unprecedented. However, from this point of view, these individuals are ignoring the fact that there have been other supreme court leaks and are narrowly defining unprecedented. [3]Memory is also a large cause for fear by many who opposed the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Those opposed fear this overturning because of a memory before Roe v. Wade of the time when abortion was not protected by federal law. This period made illegal abortions more prevalent and the consequences were much greater for women. Opposers also fear that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to other cases being overturned. In particular, laws that are protecting interracial and gay marriage. These laws are protected by similar statutes as those that protected Roe v. Wade. [3] There is a fear that in remembrance of this, the Supreme Court will be forced to overturn these laws as well.

Liam Curl

[1] Marcus, Nancy C. “Yes, Alito, There Is a Right to Privacy: Why the Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound.” ConLawNOW, vol. 13, no. 1, 2021-2022, pp. 101-114. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/akjopal13&i=101.

[2] Marzen, Chad G., and Michael Conklin. “Information Leaking and the United States Supreme Court.” Available at SSRN 4132816 (2022).[3] Winderman, Emily, and Atilla Hallsby. “The Dobbs Leak and Reproductive Justice.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 108, no. 4, 2022, pp. 421–425., https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2022.2128205.

[3] Winderman, Emily, and Atilla Hallsby. “The Dobbs Leak and Reproductive Justice.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 108, no. 4, 2022, pp. 421–425., https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2022.2128205.

[4] Image: https://gray-wtoc-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/mccAkUBT7ie4jXQ_l9Kswzc3cWU=/1200×675/smart/filters:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/DRWX7PSI3FC5DOWBJO2KHYR3RA.jpg

Artiene Talebi

Almost 20 years after Roe v. Wade decision was made, the supreme court was once again tasked with a difficult decision regarding abortions. In a 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. [4] 

Casey was a pivotal moment in US abortion rights history as it marked a significant turning point in the freedom to the right of abortions. The decision took a strong pro-abortion stance at the time which helped reaffirm the decision made in 1973. At the time, and for many years after the decision, it was thought by the public that this decision would effectively settle the abortion wars. It was thought to have done this in two ways. First, the decision helped create an environment in which the Supreme Court is unlikely either to overturn Roe or to return the Roe trimester test. Second, the decision helped create an environment in which state lawmakers-if and when Roe were overturned – would be unlikely to outlaw abortion or pass more stringent restrictions (than those enacted by Pennsylvania and approved by the Supreme Court in Casey). [2] 

However, in recent years it’s been made clear that this wasn’t the case as restrictions on abortion rights have continued to be put in place and Roe v. Wade was overturned. The problem originally arose with the vagueness of the ruling. The original ruling of Roe set in place a trimester framework that was more or less clear cut. This was scrapped by Casey in favor of what was called “undue burden”. This meant that women were given the right to an abortion until it put an “undue burden”  onto the person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. The ruling left an undefined definition on what restrictions could be made. According to a recent article written by NPR, “That gray area opened the door for states to pass laws that require counseling before an abortion, waiting periods and parental involvement for a minor. There were also additional physician and hospital restrictions added in some states.” [5] 

The decision to remain with a broader definition was taken well by members of both parties. An Article by the Michigan Law review states that, “Neither majority opinion questioned Casey’s formulation of the constitutional test. Casey appears to have defined a consensus that has reduced the pressure on the Court to reassess basic principles and that has endured for almost a decade.”[6]

Nearly 30 years after this decision, a global pandemic broke out unlike anything the world had ever seen. The Covid-19 pandemic brought everyday life to a halt and forced people to become extremely cautious of health and safety matters. One may ask, how do these two seemingly unrelated events correlate with each other in the slightest. As a matter of fact, both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant amount of impact on the future of Roe v. Wade decision and abortion laws in the US.

During the height of the pandemic, vaccine mandates became regular in many areas of the US. Once these mandates were implemented, many people took anger to these and began to protest as a result. Resistance to COVID-19 vaccination has led to renewed interest in the abortion debate, as opponents of the new mandates have asserted that the legal arguments behind requiring vaccines are inconsistent with those protecting abortion. Some figures have even gone so far as to revive the “my body, my choice slogan” created by the reproductive freedom movement as a rallying call to end vaccine mandates. [1] From a legal standpoint, the conflict has escalated to the courtroom. Parties across the United States are of the belief that vaccine mandates cannot be squared with the constitutional protection of abortion access. [1] This debate, in essence, threw a copious amount of mystery into the future of abortion law as there was thought by some to be a sense of hypocrisy in some of the decision making between vaccination status and abortion rights.

This debate acted as a reason that sparked many states to create more restrictive laws and regulations on abortion. This led to many states experiencing a drop in abortions performed. Alongside this, In the state of Massachusetts there were no major policy changes regarding abortions. However there were 1725 less abortions than expected, corresponding to a 20% drop, from March 2020 to December 2020. [3] It was found that despite uninterrupted abortion service provision, abortion care utilization decreased markedly in Massachusetts during the pandemic. This continues the trend of mystery surrounding Covid and abortions as it is yet to be determined why there was such a strong decrease in correlation with vaccine mandates being placed. [3]

While the two events are extremely contrasting, politically and legally, they served as ways to create question marks and vagueness surrounding the abortion laws in the US. The grey-area that was put in place by the Casey decision allowed states to have more broad definitions in their rules around abortions. Similarly, due to the various mandates put in place because of the pandemic, many states were able to use the same reasoning to apply it to rules surrounding another aspect of healthcare. 

Overall, both of these events resulted in decision-making power being delegated from the federal governments to local and state judiciary bodies. With the overturning of Roe, this has been amplified significantly.  This has created a US landscape which has a vastly different stance on abortion all across the country. 

Works Cited

[1] Curcio, Alyssa. “IMMUNIZING ROE: HOW COURT TREATMENT OF COVID-I9 VACCINE MANDATES SUPPORTS REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 43.1 (2022): 1-30. ProQuest. Web. 13 Apr. 2023.

[2] Devins, Neal. “How ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey’ (Pretty Much) Settled the Abortion Wars.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 118, no. 7, 2009, pp. 1318–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40389508. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.

[3] Fulcher IR;Onwuzurike C;Goldberg AB;Cottrill AA;Fortin J;Janiak E; “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Abortion Care Utilization and Disparities by Age.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35114184/.

[4]“Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 12 Apr. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Planned-Parenthood-of-Southeastern-Pennsylvania-v-Casey.

[5] Shivaram, Deepa. “Roe Established Abortion Rights. 20 Years Later, Casey Paved the Way for Restrictions.” NPR, NPR, 6 May 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096885897/roe-established-abortion-rights-20-years-later-casey-paved-the-way-for-restricti.

[6] Whitman, Chris. “Looking Back on Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 100, no. 7, 2002, pp. 1980–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1556082. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.

California is always seen as a progressive mixing pot of cultures, from anti-gun laws to abortion, but how much of our perception of the state is true? Did you know that the first anti-gun laws in California were an attempt to hinder Black Panther activists?[1] At California’s inception in 1850, abortion was outlawed.[2] This was then changed over a century later, in the People vs. Ballard decision in 1959, and even then that was only when the mother’s life was at risk.[2] This kicked off many drafts of legislation which allowed abortion to different degrees, most died in committees.[2] The Therapeutic Abortion Act was “reluctantly” signed by Reagan, the California governor at the time, 1967.[2] He made comparisons of the bill to mass genocides, specifically Hitler and “what (he) tried to do.”[2]

However, even with this pushback, the act was signed, allowing California women to get an abortion, which is considered one of the first pro-choice bills pre-Roe v. Wade. It’s interesting how, once Reagan was elected as president in the 1980’s after Roe v. Wade was passed, he tried to promise a human life amendment.[3] This ‘human life amendment’ is also known as the Hogan-Helms amendment.[4] Said amendment defined the fetus as an individual at the ‘moment of conception.’[4] There were many issues found with this amendment, so it was not put into action.[4] Some of these issues included defining ‘moment of conception,’ the cost of abortions rising, and “chaos” caused by the disregard that the amendment held for the constitution and precedent.[4] His signing the Therapeutic Abortion Act led to a surge of abortions in California, and is one of the only pieces of legislation that Reagan openly regretted signing.[5]

It was this switch in anti-abortion views that allowed Reagan to gain the following he needed in order to win the presidential election.[12] However, it was because of his signing of the act in 1967 that made anti-abortion activists hesitant to support him, instead attacking him with other “pro-choice” colleagues, such as Kennedy and Carter.[12] This view changed with more campaigning, one of his oppositionists in 1976 stating, “Well, Reagan isn’t perfect, but he’s electable.”[12]

Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, Prop. 1 has been signed into California’s state constitution, which continues to protect the rights to abortion and contraception for all Californian women.[6] However, one thing to note is that minors must get parental consent from guardians in order to receive an abortion, this has been the case for some time and has not been repealed.[6]

In addition to this exception, there was also opposition to Prop .1 before it was even signed. [7] Specifically, the argument made by CaliforniaTogether, is that taxes would go up to help pay for the abortions of women in other states, most likely Arizona.[7] However, this was misinformation used to gain opposition to the bill.[7] We know this because the fiscal impact of the bill is defined by the bill itself.[8] The strain it would put on Californians’ taxes? Zero.[8]

Prop .1 passed with the help of Shannon Udovic-Constant, M.D. of the Chair of Calfornia’s Medical Association.[13] She spoke out in support of the legislation stating, “California has a long history of protecting and defending reproductive health care rights, and by reaffirming our basic and fundamental principle that women should be able to get the health care they need, our state is once again leading the way.”[13]

There are three overarching moral views when concerning the fetus, two of which are on opposite sides of the spectrum, and one that falls somewhere in the middle. The first, being that the fetus has all the rights that we as people hold, and is considered a different being from the mother.[9] The second other extreme is that the fetus holds no rights until birth.[9] The third, which falls in the middle, is referred to as “gestation.” Gestation means the process or period of developing inside the womb between conception and birth.[9] When this is considered under the lens of moral rights, the fetus gains rights as gestation furthers.[9] This, surprisingly, is where California falls, due to how effective the abortion would be.[6] California legislation doesn’t necessarily consider the moral rights of the fetus, rather the health of the mother.[6]

Now, where does Prop .1 fit into all of this? It’s actually quite interesting, prior to Prop .1 and the overturning of Roe v. Wade women in California could get an abortion as late as around twenty-four weeks, unless there was a health issue with the mother.[10] Many politicians that opposed Prop .1 stated (falsely) that it would allow women in California, and those that fled there, to get abortions before the baby was born at any time.[8] This was a part of their argument in order to allow them to try and kill the bill, which, fortunately for Californian women, and women across the country, did not work.[8]

This brings us to restrictive legislation in other states, specifically those that would criminalize women fleeing to other states to receive abortions. While no state has passed a bill restricting this travel, there have been many that have already attempted to criminalize getting an abortion in a different state.[11] One of these states is Missouri, which has a bill “pending” passage.[11] Thankfully, there is precedent against this law being put into place, specifically the case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts in 1985.[11] The decision was based upon the idea that yes, states can persecute citizens as long as the deed was punishable in both states, not just one or the other.[11] This, in terms of abortion, would make California a haven state for all women seeking abortions if the supreme court were to stick with the precedent of their past decisions. However, they overturned Roe v. Wade, so there’s no telling what their opinions are as of late. 

Alexandra West

Works Cited

[1] Vankin, Johnathan. “California Gun Control: How Ronald Reagan and the Black Panthers Started a Movement.” Statewide. Accessed April 10, 2023. https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/4412-california-gun-control-reagan-black-panthers/.

[2] Pender, Caelyn. “From Illegal to haven state: how CA abortion laws have changed from 1850 to today.” KRON4. Accessed April 10, 2023. https://www.kron4.com/news/from-illegal-to-haven-state-how-ca-abortion-laws-have-changed-from-1850-to-today/.

[3] Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Museum. “Proclamation 5671: National Sanctity of Human Life Day.” January 14, 1988. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/proclamation-5761-national-sanctity-human-life-day-1988. Accessed April 12, 2023. 

[4] Pilpel, H.F.. “The Fetus as a person: Possible legal consequences of the Hogan Helms amendment.” National Library of Medicine. 1974. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4459148/. Accessed April 13, 2023. 

[5] Barnes, Fred. “Ronald Reagan: Father of the Pro-Life movement.” Washington Journal. Published November 6, 2003. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106808204063174300. Accessed April 12, 2023. 

[6] Center for Reproductive Rights. “California Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe.” Accessed April 10, 2023. https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/california/.

[7] Bluth, Rachel. “Opponents of California’s Abortion Rights Measure Mislead on Expense to Taxpayers.” CaliforniaHealthline. Published September 21, 2022. https://californiahealthline.org/news/article/california-abortion-constitution-influx-fact-check/. Accessed April 12, 2023. 

[8] Prop. 1. “Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom.” Put on the ballot by the legislature. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/1. Accessed April 12, 2023. 

[9] Paediatr, J. “Moral Status of the Fetus: Fetal Rights or maternal autonomy?” Child Health. Volume 39, published 2003, 58-59. 

[10] Koseff, Alexei. “Would Prop. 1 allow abortions after fetal viability? Legal experts say no.” CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/10/california-abortion-law-prop-1/. Accessed April 14, 2023. 

[11] Jacobson, Louis. “Can states punish women for traveling out of state to get an abortion?” Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish-women-for-traveling-out-of-state-to-get-an-abortion/. Accessed April 15, 2023. 

[12] Reid, T.R.. “Reagan is Favored by Anti-Abortionists.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/12/reagan-is-favored-by-anti-abortionists/f89c94bf-4e00-4674-b91c-c1f10a6aea15/. Published April 12, 1980. Accessed April 20, 2023.

[13] Udovic-Constant, Shannon. “CMA Board Chair issues statement in support of Prop .1 to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in CA.”https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/49817/CMA-board-chair-issues-statement-in-support-of-Prop-1-to-enshrine-the-right-to-reproductive-freedom-in-CA. Published on July 7, 2022. Accessed April 20, 2023.

J. Marie Boerema

“I swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” promises every woman who enters the military.

Roe v Wade ruled that the rights inherent in the Constitution included the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. And yet, because of a strange legal contradiction, these women were denied access to an abortion while under the healthcare umbrella of the Armed Forces because they swore to defend that same Constitution. 

In 1973, Roe v Wade declared a woman has the right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy. Seven years later, the Hyde Amendment guaranteed that there would be no access to federal funds to perform an abortion, except in the case of rape, incest or endangerment of life. Because of this, there was one group of women in particular who swore an oath to support and defend their constitution against all enemies and who did not receive the rights declared to be constitutionally theirs by Roe v Wade. 

How did this happen? The Hyde Amendment, passed seven years after Roe v Wade, guaranteed that federal funding could not be used to obtain an abortion unless in case of rape, incest, or immediate endangerment of life. Women in the military are under Tricare, “the health care program for uniformed service members, retirees, and their families around the world.” Active-duty women have no option to disenroll from Tricare. Legally, the military cannot provide resources for obtaining an abortion because it is a federally-funded organization, which means that the Hyde Amendment forbids the allocation of its funds towards abortion resources. As a result, women who wanted an abortion and were actively engaged in the defense of their country had no legal option except to seek an abortion on their own time and out of their own pocket, in contrast to women who had the option to pursue their own health insurance. 

This strange divergence from mainstream access to funding for abortion before Roe v Wade was overturned created unique memories of the abortion process within the military for women trying to obtain an abortion at the time.

Allison Gill, who was 21 and serving the Navy when she was drugged and raped, did not immediately file paperwork detailing the rape after it occurred in the 1990s. This resulted in significant difficulty obtaining an abortion when she discovered her pregnancy later, since Tricare required extensive documentation of the rape before she could have access to funding. She ended up simply walking off base one day and going to a Planned Parenthood clinic that happened to be close to her base. She paid for it out of her savings. At the same time Roe v Wade was upholding her right to an abortion, the Hyde Amendment, coupled with the requirement to be enrolled under Tricare, ensured that she would have to obtain a secret (and expensive) abortion by herself. 

Similarly, Joanna Sweatt’s abortion process while serving in the Marines was a long search for procedures she was consistently denied. She had two abortions out of pocket while married and serving in the Marines, one due to financial reasons and one because of its life-threatening nature. Her memory of obtaining these abortions while stationed in the continental US is traumatic, but she draws attention to the fact that many deployed women’s only option to get an abortion is to find sympathetic medical personnel off base (sometimes in remote villages or cities with poor infrastructure and facilities) because the military will not provide resources for an abortion. Allison Gill was able to get an abortion because she was stationed in America, not on deployment where it would be almost impossible to find the necessary medical resources. Not every woman in the military who desires an abortion has the same access that other women (civilians and otherwise) do. 

These perspectives of what it takes to obtain an abortion are unique to military women and form a particular site of collective memory of the interplay between the Hyde Amendment and Roe v Wade. 

 To conclude, the legal consequences of these two diametrically opposed ideologies (represented by the Hyde Amendment and Roe v Wade) have a direct impact on how these women perceived and remember their abortions. Many women outside the military remember the era when Roe v Wade signified the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy as a time of freedom to obtain an abortion. In contrast, servicewomen did not have a similar freedom because of these dueling legalities, and this collective memory of the interplay between the Hyde Amendment and Roe v Wade is unique to their situation and legacy. 

Sources:

Padilla, Mariel. “’The Government Owns Your Body’: What Abortion Access Now Looks like for the Military.” The 19th, 22 Mar. 2023, https://19thnews.org/2022/07/abortion-access-military-service-members/.

Salganicoff, Alina and Sobel, Laurie. “The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services.” KFF, 6 Mar. 2021, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/.

Seymour, Jane et al. “Pregnancy and Abortion: Experiences and Attitudes of Deployed U.S. Servicewomen.” Military Medicine, 2020, 1646-1654.  

Sweatt, Joanna. “Abortion Allowed My Military Service to Continue. Without Roe, Other Women Might Be Hindered.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 28 June 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/abortion-military-service-roe-women-might-not-serve-rcna35755.

The Congressional Research Service, The Hyde Amendment: An Overview , 20 July 2022. 

TRICARE, https://www.tricare.mil/.