Month: April 2023

Despite earning the support of seven Supreme Court Justices, the vote to legalize abortion didn’t come unanimously. Two of the Justices, Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist opposed the majority opinion, and established theirs on the basis of “intrusion to legislative process” and “unconstitutionality.” Justice White was a staunch advocate of judicial restraint, meaning that he believed the judiciary should avoid making policy decisions. He felt instead that they should defer to the democratic process. White argued that the Court’s decision to strike down the Texas law banning abortions was an unwarranted intrusion into the legislative process. Justice Rehnquist, in comparison, ironically had a history of wanting to limit the intrusion of the federal government on individual rights. However, this value of his was not present in the case of Roe v. Wade. He argued that the majority opinion, granting women the autonomy to their own bodies, was not based on sound legal reasoning. He believed that the Court had created a new constitutional right to abortion out of thin air, without any basis in the text of the Constitution. 

Justice White believed that the Texas law at issue in the case was not unconstitutional, because it did not technically violate specific rights, claiming that the decision to legalize abortion should be left to the states without any federal “intrusion.” He argued that the majority opinion was based on a flawed understanding of the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to privacy. He believed that the Court was stretching the concept of privacy beyond its intended meaning, and that the Constitution did not explicitly protect a woman’s right to an abortion. However, in making this point, he neglected to acknowledge that abortions were not being officially executed when the Constitution was established. In addition to this, he criticized the Court’s decision to rely on medical and scientific evidence to support its decision. He believed that these were policy decisions that should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary. Justice White wrote in his dissenting opinion, “The Court’s finding of an existing ‘right of privacy’ in the Constitution which embraces a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy is not derived from the language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other part of the Constitution.”

Justice William Rehnquist, the other opposing Justice, was a Republican nominee appointed by President Richard Nixon. Justice Rehnquist was also a proponent of judicial restraint, and he shared Justice White’s belief that the decision to legalize abortion should be left to the states. In support of Justice White, Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment;” in attempts to justify its unconstitutionality. Justice Rehnquist also criticized the majority opinion for its reliance on medical and scientific evidence, in agreement with White. He believed it was irrelevant to the legal issues at hand. He argued that the decision to legalize abortion should be based on moral and ethical considerations, not medical or scientific ones. He ignores that this issue largely relies on the medical standings of a woman, and the existence of scientific research. Justice Rehnquist wrote, “The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct trimesters and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.” He claims that his opinion was based on ethical values, however, fails to acknowledge that allowing the states to impose restrictions at any point during pregnancy could result in the loss of the mother. He seems to also neglect any scientific opinions when offering his piece and focuses more on the “imposition” of the federal government, rather than the case at hand. 

In conclusion, the dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade were based on the belief that the decision to legalize abortion should be left to the states, rather than decided by the judiciary. The Justices of the dissenting opinion also believed that a significant right to privacy did not need to be protected by the federal government. They claimed this because abortions are not explicitly outlined in the writings of the Constitution, and that did not encompass their subjective definition of right to privacy. Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist both argued that the majority opinion was based on flawed legal reasoning, and that the Court had overstepped its bounds by creating a new constitutional right to abortion. While the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade has been widely praised for its protection of women’s rights, the dissenting opinions continue to be cited by those who oppose abortion and believe that the decision should be overturned.

Caroline Varma

Sources:

Rita Ciolli Newsday, Washington B. “Rehnquist: Judging Justice Rehnquist.” Newsday (1940-) Jul 25 1986, Nassau ed. ed.: 1. ProQuest. 20 Apr. 2023 .

“Roe v. Wade.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Apr. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade.

“Roe v. Wade (1973).” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_%281973%29.

“Roe v. Wade.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18.

“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, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_roe.html.

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. With the current situation in the United States, over half of the states are divided on this topic of abortion based on votes. I want to dedicate this post to remembering the fight against the supreme court by the Jackson Women’s health organization by looking at how different media outlets and groups responded to this.

Big news outlets such as ABC News, and New York Times, and groups such as ethnic groups, and groups with a low socioeconomic background all hold different opinions on this decision. Most disagree with the supreme court’s decision and some very interesting perspectives. Some sneak peeks of what some of the groups bring up are that not only is the decision unconstitutional and takes away a women’s right, but it also brings up how incest and rape don’t constitute abortion and only with the exception of a medical emergency. I want to dedicate a portion of it to women who come from lower-income families and how this decision can affect their life negatively.

https://reproductiverights.org/?s=jackson+dobbs

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2023/01/abortion-out-reach-exacerbation-wealth-disparities-after-dobbs-v-jackson-womens

https://news.vcu.edu/article/2022/06/exploring-the-impact-of-dobbs-v-jackson

Ada Chen

One of the most popular topics used to argue both for and against abortion is the viability of the fetus. Viability refers to the age at which a fetus could be born prematurely and still have a reasonable chance of survival [1]. Viability has come up in the arguments of protesters, For my post, I would like to discuss the ways in which various definitions of viability have been used to advocate for the unborn in the pro-life movement.

To begin with a few statistics regarding fetal viability, the record for the youngest premature-born baby that lived was born at 21 weeks, weighing only 14.8 ounces [4]. In 2021, the rate of preterm births was 10.5% of all births in the U.S. There are factors such as race and ethnicity that have interesting correlations to preterm births, but for our purpose, we will assume those to be negligible. From WHO, “preterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under five years of age”. The rates of survival decrease drastically as you increase the week of maturity: 95% survival at 31 weeks, 89% at 27, 60% at 24, 10% at 22, and almost 0% for less than 22 weeks [3]. I bring these statistics forward to allow for one to ponder among themself if the relevance of premature viability exists based on pure odds.

Above is shown Curtis Means, the youngest known premature baby to survive being born at 21 weeks. Born on July 4th, 2020 at 14.8oz, he was also born with a twin that unfortunately passed after a day of being born.

The way that the pro-life agenda uses viability to argue against abortions is simple. If a fetus can live outside the mother’s body in any capacity, the fetus should have its own moral standing as a human being, and therefore be offered human rights, in this case, the right to life. With the way that medicine has proceeded forward at a rapid pace, babies can be born much more prematurely than ever before, although many extremely premature babies that survive end up with life-long conditions that impair their health [2]. In a more legal argument that is used, if a human is alive on its own without the necessity of a womb or another person’s body, the pregnant person loses bodily autonomy over the fetus because it is no longer dependent on the body to be alive. The fetus and the fetal carrier are now considered two separate entities with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To expand more on different ways that viability is defined, often the use of a “fetal heartbeat” is brought into question. According to NPR news, a Texas law that went into effect prohibited physicians from performing an abortion if there was a fetal heartbeat detected, often as early as six weeks of pregnancy. A fetal heartbeat is defined in the law as “cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac” [5]. The drawback to this from physicians is that this cardiac activity is nothing more than an electrical activity by a grouping of cells, and does not reflect a cardiovascular system that is functioning nor a heart that could be functional. The rhythm that is detected from a fetus is much different from the rhythm that we hear from an adult under a stethoscope. The sound under a stethoscope is the opening and closing of valves in the heart, in the fetus those valves do not yet exist at six weeks of gestation.

One of the major problems I see personally with using viability on either side of the abortion debate is that money or health insurance is often a major barrier in determining the viability of a fetus. In any circumstance, unless the pregnancy is brought to the full term of around 40 weeks, there will be some necessary medical care to ensure the baby can be successful. Alternatively, it begs the moral question of the quality of life of a premature baby. In the case of Curtis Means, the youngest premature baby to ever be born and survive, he must stay on machinery in order to breathe even at his age now. This will cause obvious expenses for the parents of Curtis, which surely is fine because they wanted these children, but what about parents of unwanted children? How can we ensure their rights to the pursuit of happiness if they are denied medical needs or if their parents are unable to afford those medical needs?

To conclude, the term “viability” in the abortion debate is used widely and under various definitions in order to push further back the gestation period at which abortion should be illegal. In many cases, the intention is to drive back the law to make conception the point at which abortion is illegal-that a fetus is a viable human being as soon as it is conceived. Additionally, in places like Mississippi, fetal pain is brought into the argument which could be also construed to indicate the viability of a fetus. As I discussed the main points of argument regarding viability is the actual ability/history of a fetus to be able to survive prematurely, and the existence of a “fetal heartbeat”. Under any of these considerations, the line is hard to see, but because of this, it is able to be used to put into effect laws that inhibit abortion.

Sage Murphy

Sources Cited Below:

[1] World Health Organization. (n.d.). Preterm birth. World Health Organization. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Preterm Birth. CDC. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pretermbirth.htm

[3] Tommy’s Together, for every baby. (n. d.). Premature birth statistics. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/premature-birth/premature-birth-statistics

[4] BBC News. (2021, November 11). Alabama boy certified as world’s most premature baby. Retrieved April 12, 2023 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59243796

[5] Kerns, J., OB-GYN. NPR.org. (2021, September 3). The Texas Abortion Ban Hinges On “Fetal Heartbeat.” Doctors Call That Misleading. Retrieved April 20, 2023 from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion

The pro-life movement in the United States emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s but gained significant momentum after the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Prior to this decision, abortion was largely illegal except for cases where the mother’s life was in danger. After the passing of Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion became political and partisan. A new era of propaganda and anti-abortion rhetoric began, and the past 50-60 years of our shared history is now molded, influenced, and manipulated by this movement.

A central strategy used by the pro-life movement is in its emotional appeals to persuade people to support the movement. In the years after the Roe v. Wade decision, pro-lifers began the argument that allowing for abortion is a slippery slope that can lead to genocide and fascism. It became a human rights campaign and was even compared to the Holocaust and compared to the time when black people did not have constitutional rights in the United States [1].

Vivid imagery was also used by the pro-life/anti-abortion movement to connect the idea of an unborn fetus to a baby. This included “pictures of fetuses, in utero and aborted, fetal models, and fetuses in jars in the 1970s; fetal pins, dolls, jewelry, and clothes in addition to a proliferation of pro-life movies in the 1980s; and ultrasound visuals of fetuses in the 1990s and 2000s.”[2] This personification of the unborn fetus attempts to create a sense of humanity for the fetus, and helps shift the collective narrative that abortion was a morally reprehensible act that violates basic human rights.

Shifts in language were also used to garner support for the movement. Abortion was commonly described as “murder”, and unborn fetuses were often described as a “child” who was “killed”. This shift in language represented a turning point in the movement, where previously Catholics were uneasy about using such explicit language about the practice of abortion. However, by the end of the 1970s, anti-abortion people were on board, as they realized they needed to up the rhetoric. “Catholic diocesan weeklies began publishing articles with titles such as “After about 10 to 12 Weeks, the Child Inside Is Cut into Pieces and Pulled or Scooped Out”; “Live, Aborted Babies Sold for Tests”; and “Today My Mother Killed Me: The Distressing Diary of an Aborted Child.” [5]

To this day, misinformation regarding abortions is also a tactic used by the pro-life movement to reduce abortions and change the narrative. A crisis pregnancy center (CPC) provides free services and counseling for women who have had unplanned pregnancies. CPCs are often funded by religious groups and taxpayer dollars, and work to persuade women to not get the abortion, by any means necessary.

Two NBC News producers went to state-funded CPCs in Texas, seeking pregnancy counseling. At one location, a CPC staffer implied to the journalist that abortions can cause cancer and infertility, and played the journalist a video saying that abortion causes mental illness. At a second CPC in the Dallas area, these journalists were given the same information, and even pointed to a plastic model of a fetus and told the journalist, “Can you imagine one of these in your panties?”, when the journalist asked about the abortion pill. The journalist was then sent home with a pair of knit baby socks.[3]

While today we think of the pro-life movement synonymously with conservative Republicans, it was not always this way. Prior to the Republican national convention in 1976, Republicans were on average more pro-choice than their Democratic counterparts, less than 40% of Republicans considered themselves pro-life. Nevertheless, after 1976 the GOP adopted an official anti-abortion platform and sought out a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. The main motivation for this shift was to appeal to Democrat Catholics. This shift in who the party appealed to ultimately formed the GOP we know today. The Republican party began to view abortion as a symptom of the sexual revolution and of feminism, and by 2009 only 26% of Republicans were pro-choice.[4]

In the 1980s and 1990s, the anti-abortion movement experienced a significant shift in strategy in which some groups rejected the traditional approach of seeking legal reforms. Instead, they opted for more radical methods to promote their cause. One notable group was ‘Operation Rescue’, which pioneered the pro-life “rescue” strategy by creating human blockades outside abortion clinics to disrupt daily operations and make it harder for women to access abortion services. This strategy aimed to attract media attention and sway public opinion towards their pro-life position. However, more extremist elements within the movement went beyond protest and resorted to violence and intimidation tactics against abortion providers. “Between the early 1980s and the 2000s, there were 153 assaults, 383 death threats, 3 kidnappings, 18 attempted murders, and 9 murders related to abortion providers.” [2]

In the 50 years since the Roe v. Wade decision, there has been a battle over our collective memory of abortion and abortion rights. Will we remember it as a fight for women’s rights and bodily autonomy, or will we remember it as a human rights violation of the unborn fetus. The latter is riddled with misinformation and political motivations, and not necessarily motivated by protecting the sanctity of life. Analysis of these motivations can greatly improve and sharpen the lens that we look through at this collective memory.

Written by Alex Kenny

Works Cited

[1]Shivaram, D. (2022). The movement against abortion rights is nearing its apex. but it began way before Roe. NPR. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096154028/the-movement-against-abortion-rights-is-nearing-its-apex-but-it-began-way-before

[2]Holland, J. (2016). Abolishing abortion: The history of the pro-life movement in America. The American Historian. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/

[3]McFadden, C., Amorebieta, M., & Martinez, D. (2022, June 29). Crisis pregnancy centers in Texas gave medical misinformation to NBC News Producers. NBCNews.com. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/texas-state-funded-crisis-pregnancy-centers-gave-medical-misinformatio-rcna34883

[4]Williams, D. K. (2011). The GOP’s abortion strategy: Why pro-choice Republicans became pro-life in the 1970s: Journal of Policy History. Cambridge Core. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01

[5]Williams, D. K. (2016). A new image. Defenders of the Unborn, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199391646.003.0007

The topic of abortion has been a contentious and complex issue, eliciting fervent debates and deeply-held beliefs from many differing perspectives. One commonly perpetuated myth is the notion that women who undergo abortions inevitably suffer from severe and lasting psychological trauma. This myth continues to be propagated by anti-abortion proponents, perpetuated in public discourse and has shaped policies and laws related to reproductive health. This misconception becomes increasingly vital to recognize when it comes to creating policy and legislation due to the severity of the possible consequences. However, a growing population of scientific researchers has challenged this notion, revealing that the psychological effects of abortion are far more diverse and nuanced and that most women do not experience traumatic psychological outcomes after an abortion. This site of memory aims to critically examine the myth of trauma surrounding the effects of abortion on women, exploring the origins, implications, and empirical evidence behind this belief. By delving into the multidimensional nature of women’s experiences with abortion, one is able to shed light on the complexity of the issue and gain a more in-depth understanding of the interactions between abortion and its effect on women’s mental health. 

Abortion has morphed into an issue that most US citizens will possess a strong opinion about, whether or not that individual is completely educated about the history and policy surrounding it. This leads to many misconceptions being spread concerning abortion and its effects after the procedure. These examples of discourse can be classified as abortion misinformation and abortion disinformation [6]. Abortion misinformation is the “unintentional spread of false or misleading information about the physical and psychological risks or consequences of getting an abortion.” Abortion disinformation is “similar but is intentionally spread to promote an antiabortion agenda.” The spread of disinformation is increasingly difficult to combat due to the exponential growth of social media in the last 20 years. 

There has been widespread mention of an alleged “Abortion Trauma Syndrome” in various forms of media, including written material, television, and radio programs. For instance, leaflets cautioning about the negative physical and emotional effects of abortion have been circulated in US cities. One such leaflet states, “Most often women will feel the consequences of her decision within days of her abortion. If they don’t appear immediately, they will appear as she ages.[1]”  Research has shown that the majority of information individuals may seek online about abortion is not reliable, and will commonly promote disinformation that aims to misform and thwart abortion access. These narratives can progress to become truths due to our internet system’s inadequate checks and balances of big data. Studies show the highest volume of online searches about abortion are in the states with the most restricted access [2]. Even a change in local policy on abortion in the U.S. is associated with more attempts to find abortion information online [3].

“Abortion and Mental Health” by Brenda Major and Mark Appelbaum, published in 1992, provides a comprehensive review of research on the psychological effects of abortion [4]. The authors conclude that most women who have abortions do not experience long-term psychological harm. The evidence did not support the claim that observed associations between abortion and mental health problems are caused by abortion per se as opposed to other preexisting and co-occurring risk factors. They highlight that many studies that claimed to find a link between abortion and psychological harm suffer from methodological limitations, including inadequate control for confounding factors, lack of random assignment to abortion or childbirth groups, and failure to account for pre-existing mental health issues. Major and Applebaum emphasize the importance of using rigorous scientific methods to study the psychological effects of abortion, as well as considering the contextual factors that may influence women’s experiences, such as their reasons for seeking an abortion, their support systems, and their access to post-abortion care. 

One longitudinal study followed women who were seeking an abortion for a first-trimester unintended pregnancy [5]. Pre-abortion and post-abortion depression and self-esteem, post-abortion emotions, decision satisfaction, perceived harm and benefit, and post-traumatic stress disorder were assessed. Demographic variables and prior mental health were examined as predictors of post-abortion psychological responses. The results were that depression decreased and self-esteem increased from pre to post-abortion, but negative emotions increased and decision satisfaction decreased over time. The study concluded that “most women do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years post-abortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression.” 

It is important to recognize that while the majority of women do not experience long-term psychological harm after abortion, there are some women who may experience emotional distress related to their decision. Women’s experiences with abortion are complex and multifaceted, and it is crucial to consider the individual and contextual factors that may influence their psychological responses. Factors such as pre-existing mental health issues, lack of support from partners or family, societal stigma, or religious beliefs may impact how a woman perceives and copes with her decision to have an abortion. It is also important to acknowledge that societal and cultural factors can play a significant role in shaping women’s experiences with abortion, including the stigmatization and discrimination that some women may face, which can contribute to psychological distress.

It is crucial to differentiate between the psychological effects of the abortion procedure and the impact of external factors such as stigma, lack of support, or societal pressure. Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions do not experience long-term psychological harm directly caused by the abortion procedure. Rather, the psychological distress some women may experience is often related to these external factors and not inherently tied to the abortion procedure.

The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal and complex, and the experiences and emotions associated with it can vary greatly among individuals. Some women may feel relief, while others may experience sadness, guilt, or a sense of loss. The indisputable fact that not all women experience post-traumatic stress following an induced abortion should show lawmakers and the US public that abortion should be a woman’s choice and that their experience not be generalized across all female populations.

References:

[1] Pro-Life Action Ministries.  What They Won’t Tell You at the Abortion Clinic . St Paul, Minn: undated. Leaflet.

[2] Guendelman S, Pleasants E, Cheshire C, Kong A. Exploring Google Searches for Out-of-Clinic Medication Abortion in the United States During 2020: Infodemiology Approach Using Multiple Samples. JMIR Infodemiology 2022;2(1):e33184

 [3] Reis, B.Y., Brownstein, J.S. Measuring the impact of health policies using Internet search patterns: the case of abortion. BMC Public Health 10, 514 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-514

 [4] Abortion and mental health – american psychological association. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2023, from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/amp-64-9-863.pdf 

[5] Major B, Cozzarelli C, Cooper ML, Zubek J, Richards C, Wilhite M, Gramzow RH. Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;57(8):777-84. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.8.777. PMID: 10920466.

[6] American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Misinformation and disinformation. American Psychological Association. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-disinformation

People argue all the time. When it comes to the abortion debate, there are many terms used when discussing a fetus’ progression in pregnancy as it slowly develops into a baby. It is extremely important for Americans to grasp the political language used to fully understand the Roe v. Wade decision, and how to apply these terms in their own discussions. 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.

Outline:

1. Introduction of the debate
2. The pre-natal progression of the unborn baby
   1. Define key terms and their implications in the debate, such as fetus, embyrogenesis, embryo, blastocyst, and conception
3. Summarize how both liberals and conservatives use the political language in their respective traditional views of abortion
   1. Discuss Born-Alive, “Baby murder/er,” when a fetus has a heartbeat, when it can feel pain
4. Conclusion

Sources: 

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.

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/multimedia/blastocyst/img-20008646#:~:text=Three%20days%20after%20fertilization%2C%20a,cells%20will%20become%20the%20embryo.

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/fetus

Caden Linnert

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.

1. Overview of types of bans and legalities in place for abortion throughout the states.
   • A quick review on the types of bans, viability, criminalization, access, and protections.
   • https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
   • https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
2. Closer look into the specificities of the laws in place in different states (for example, this state allows exceptions for health of the mother but not for rape, etc.). Laws of note will be highlighted in this section. This will also include a picture of a map depicting the abortion laws by state. Brief description at the end of this section describing the current issues surrounding the FDA and the abortion pill.
   • https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/six-months-post-roe-24-us-states-have-banned-abortion-or-are-likely-do-so-roundup
   • https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
   • https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state
3. A comparison of these laws in the greater lens of American memory and culture. This section will describe how historical partisanship and geographical regions affect current abortion laws.
   • https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states?loggedin=true&rnd=1681434020169
   • https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/qa-why-south-is-anti-abortion-epicenter/
   • https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/17/upshot/partisan-segregation-maps.html
   • https://www.statista.com/statistics/1079467/abortion-support-party-level-legalization-us/
4. Short conclusion to tie everything together.

The very first birth control clinic in the United States, which laid the groundwork for what is now Planned Parenthood, was opened on October 16^th, 1916, in Brownsville, Brooklyn^[4]. The clinic was shut down nine days later by police though, because it was illegal at the time in the US to discuss birth control. According to Planned Parenthood, “women lined up down the block to get birth control information and advice from Sanger, Byrne, and Mindell,” the women who opened the clinic. However, the woman who is known to be the start of Planned Parenthood, and other reproductive health clinics, was Margaret Sanger. And while she provided critical foundation to what reproductive and women’s health is now, it is possible to have started with a very racist ideology, eugenics.  

Eugenics is the outdated theory claiming that by controlling who reproduces, you can get rid of, or improve, hereditary traits, including race^[3]. There is a lot of debate and controversy around the origins of Planned Parenthood because of the associations Sanger had with Eugenics. She believed that the “fit” should have more children, and that the “unfit” should have less children, a very popular ideology during the early 1900s, although, it was never clarified or defined in terms of race explicitly^[6]. Because eugenics was so popular during the time she started the reproductive rights movement, it is possible that she was influenced in some way by the theory.  

The extent to which it influenced her and whether it inspired her work is what is mostly debated and still relatively unclear. Some people believe that she wanted to provide accessible birth control to black women because of racism and eugenics, while others believe that she did the opposite and went against the white male hegemony in the US and provided birth control to black women because of that^[6]. The reason this is still so controversial is because there is no source where she explicitly says anything related to eugenics, but in some of her work eugenic influence can be interpreted to be the motive.  

One of the most influential and impactful projects she worked on was something called the “Negro Project”, which was started in 1939 and aimed at helping African Americans in the south^[3]. Nonetheless, it appears she did have a white savior complex as she wrote in a letter to philanthropist Albert Lasker for funding for the Negro Project that “To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.”^[3] This could be seen as a white savior complex, especially in the social and political environment now, but it was probably not seen this way during the early 1900s but was seen as extremely progressive. This should not take away from the idea that there were people who used eugenics to justify providing birth control to black women, but it seems that this was not Sanger’s intentions or motives. 

She also fully acknowledged the systematic racism and prejudice that black women face in the same letter as she describes them as “notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste’ system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life.”^[3] Neither of these quotes share a eugenics sentiment, but they do show how Sanger see herself as a savior to black women in the United States.  

Margaret Sanger also worked closely with black activists such as W. E. B. DuBois and Mary McLeod Bethune. In the creation and planning of the Negro Project, Sanger consulted these black leaders for advice on how to run this project to help black women’s health. These black leaders approved of what she was doing with the project, however once she had to give up control of it to the large funders, the connotation of it changed a little. Sanger was an activist for women’s health, including black women, and she was able to start the fight for access to abortion before Roe v. Wade happened. She was very influential in the early to mid 1900s in the women’s fight to access birth control and abortion in the United States.

There is no doubt that eugenics was a popular concept in the early 1900s and some people used it as a reason for birth control and abortion to be more widespread and accepted in the US, but it is still debated whether the founder of Planned Parenthood also fell into this ideology. Some historians and authors argue that she did believe in eugenics, while others claim that this is a myth. Although there seems to be very little motivation based off eugenics in the creation and foundation of Planned Parenthood, there are racist tones, such as Margaret Sanger’s white savior complex.

Works Cited:

[1] Baum, B. D., Harris, D., & Roberts, D. (2009). Margaret Sanger and the Racial Origins of the Birth Control Movement. In Racially writing the Republic Racists, race rebels, and transformations of American identity. essay, Duke University Press.

[2] McCann, C. R. (1999). Chapter Four: Birth Control and Racial Betterment. In Birth control politics in the United States, 1916-1945. essay, Cornell University Press.

[3] Opposition claims about Margaret Sanger – Planned Parenthood. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8013/9611/6937/Opposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf

[4] Parenthood, P. (n.d.). The history & impact of planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-history#:~:text=On%20October%2016%2C%201916%2C%20Sanger,Sanger%2C%20Byrne%2C%20and%20Mindell.

[5] Underwood Archives/Getty Images. (n.d.). Women and men sitting with baby carriages in front of the Sanger Clinic in Brooklyn, N.Y., October 1916. How Planned Parenthood Changed Everything. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/4527330/planned-parenthood-100-history/.

[6] Valenza C. (1985). Was Margaret Sanger a racist?. Family planning perspectives, 17(1), 44–46.

Megan Mosteller

Abortion is a widely contested topic, not only socially but professionally as well. For physicians, the Hippocratic oath and informed consent have been altered greatly as attitudes on abortion shift. This shift not only affects physicians performing abortions, but patients receiving them as well.

Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic oath is a vow that new physicians take in which they agree to uphold various ethical standards while practicing medicine [2]. The exact origins of the Hippocratic oath are uncertain, but it is widely accepted that it was written in the 4th century B.C.E. by Hippocrates [4]. Although it was devised in the 4th century B.C.E., it was not commonly used until after World War II in attempts to prevent atrocities like those committed by Nazi doctors from occurring again [7]. This delayed use of the Hippocratic oath demonstrates the processual aspect of memory by showing how the changing situation of the present can alter the importance of concepts that were previously situated in the past.

There are multiple versions of the Hippocratic oath, with many medical institutions modifying it to a version more reflective of their ideals [4]. The alteration of the oath reflects the partial and selective nature of memory. As institutions choose to remember certain parts of the Hippocratic oath, others are forgotten. Two common versions of the Hippocratic oath exist- the traditional Hippocratic oath and the modern Hippocratic oath- in which the topic of abortion is heavily disagreed upon. In the traditional Hippocratic oath, a physician must swear to never “give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” [4]. Alternatively, in the modern Hippocratic oath, the word abortion is omitted completely, with the closest reference being, “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life…” [5]. The editing of the role that the physician has in inducing an abortion in the oath further reveals the processual nature of memory. As time progressed, the attitudes surrounding abortion have also progressed and this has been reflected in the modified oath. By altering the oath, it forgets this part of physician’s history.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is a way of educating a patient about the procedure they are getting in order to ensure they are fully knowledgable as a means of protecting both the patient and physician. Typical features of informed consent include:

• “affirming the patient’s role in the decision-making process
• describing the clinical issue and suggested treatment
• stating alternatives to the suggested treatment (including the option of no treatment)
• stating risks and benefits of the suggested treatment (and comparing them to the risks and benefits of alternatives)
• stating related uncertainties
• assessing the patient’s understanding of the information provided
• eliciting the patient’s preference (and thereby consent)” [3]

Despite this standard, extra requirements have been added to achieve informed consent prior to an abortion in many states. In North Carolina, a law called the “Women’s right to know act” was passed, requiring that 72 hours before an abortion, the patient must be informed of the name of the physician, the medical risks, the probable gestational age of the unborn child, the insurance of the physician who is to perform the abortion, and “the location of the hospital that offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within 30 miles of the location where the abortion is performed..” [9]. Beyond this, the act required that in order for informed consent to be fulfilled, at least 4 hours before a patient receives an abortion, the physician must perform a live ultrasound and simultaneously explain things such as, “the presence, location, and dimensions of the unborn child within the uterus and the number of unborn children depicted” [9]. The ultrasound and heart beat must be displayed to the patient and they may choose not to look or listen, but the physician must continue.

The constitutionality of this act was later challenged by Stuart v. Huff, in which the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners challenged the medically unnecessary ultrasound and its associated speech in the “Women’s right to know act.” A federal trial court ruled “that this coercive requirement violates physicians’ First Amendment rights..” [8]. North Carolina appealed this ruling, but the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision. North Carolina then petitioned for the US Supreme Court to hear the case, which was denied and effectively upheld the Fourth Circuit’s decision, blocking this act. The implementation of this act that was later deemed unconstitutional further reveals the selective nature of memory. The Constitution, the founding document of America, was selectively forgotten with this creation of this act in order to fit the needs of politicians. This unconstitutional act was then forgotten from collective memory once it was no longer allowed to be selective due to the decision of the courts.

Roe v. Wade

The concepts of the Hippocratic oath and informed consent are connected to Roe v. Wade via their underlying implications. All three are some sort of “decree” regarding the changing nature of how a physician and patient should handle an abortion procedure. Depending on which version of the Hippocratic oath a physician takes, he or she may promise to never “give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” or to take life when necessary [4]. Depending on the laws in certain states, physicians and patients may have to perform or undergo unnecessary procedures in order for the abortion to even be considered. Roe v. Wade is no different in the sense that regardless of what era one looks at- during Roe or post Roe– it is a declaration of how abortion procedures should be handled.

Madison Leary

References

[1] Bingham, Richard P. “What Fixes It? the PQ Hippocratic Oath – Electrical Contractor Magazine.” Electrical Contractor, Electrical Contractor Magazine, 2018, https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/systems-what-fixes-it-pq-hippocratic-oath.

[2] “Greek Medicine – the Hippocratic Oath.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 7 Feb. 2012, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html.

[3] Hajar, Rachel. “The Physician’s Oath: Historical Perspectives.” PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/.

[4] Hulkower, Raphael. The History of the Hippocratic Oath: Outdated, Inauthentic, and Yet Still Relevant. EJBM, 2010, https://www.einsteinmed.edu/uploadedFiles/EJBM/page41_page44.pdf.

[5] Lasagna, Louis. “Nova | Doctors’ Diaries | the Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html.

[6] Narsaria, Rachita. “The Hippocratic Oath: The Original and Revised Version.” The Practo Blog for Doctors, Practo, 10 Mar. 2015, https://doctors.practo.com/the-hippocratic-oath-the-original-and-revised-version/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20classical%20Oath%20of,Gods%20of%20a%20few%20responsibilities.

[7] Smith, Larry. “A Brief History of Medicine’s Hippocratic Oath, or How Times Have Changed.” Science Direct, Elsevier B.V, 26 June 2008, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0194599808002817.

[8] “Stuart Et Al. v. Camnitz.” Center for Reproductive Rights, Center for Reproductive Rights, 10 Mar. 2021, https://reproductiverights.org/case/stuart-et-al-v-camnitz/.

[9] “Women’s Right to Know Act”. 2011, https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_90/Article_1I.pdf.