Category: Category idea

Roe v. Wade established and maintained women’s right to obtain abortions for almost fifty years. Over this span, its story has been described and argued from dozens of perspectives, each vying to become dominant in the American understanding of abortion. With Dobbs v. Jackson and its overturning of Roe v. Wade, a new set of narratives is competing for cultural dominance, both on legislative and public fronts.

The Supreme Court made their narrative of Roe v. Wade clear from the beginning of their opinion statement in Dobbs v. Jackson. They make a 5-part argument for Roe’s overturning, the first part of which reads: “Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong from the day it was decided. Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”

With this paragraph, the Supreme Court posits the narrative that Roe is as antithetical to democracy as “separate but equal” racial segregation, as was formerly upheld in Plessy. The Court also makes the argument that any Court decision which enacts policy around debated societal concerns is equally antithetical to democracy, apparently without concern for the possibility that this argument calls into question the democratic virtue of all legislation.

Sheila Jasanoff notes the hypocrisy of this decision in her opinion piece for Harvard Kennedy School: “A high court of six men and three women, representing a small slice of this nation’s intellectual, moral, and gender diversity, has handed down a decision that rolls back 50 years of growing control by women over their bodies, selves, and life choices. …Grounding a decision in a perverse historicism—as if one can write into law attitudes toward life crafted centuries before current biological and social understandings—is a form of anti-intellectualism that has no place in democracies committed to protecting the lives and liberty of all their citizens.”

Here, Jasanoff points out the temporal nature of collective memory: that societal understanding of conception, pregnancy, and abortion have changed over the nearly-50 years since Roe, and over the nearly-250 years since the founding of America. She presents Roe as a critical foothold for women’s rights, and describes its overturning as an enormous setback.

This position is denounced by Marjorie Dannenfelser, in her opinion piece for Fox News: “The pro-abortion side is marked not by reflection on how they have failed to serve and meet the needs of women, but by lies, terror and yet another push by congressional Democrats to impose abortion on demand until birth nationwide.” Marjorie prefers to push the idea that the majority of Americans support the blocking of abortion, claiming that “Abortion advocates realize they’re losing the battle for Americans’ hearts and minds,” and “With the Supreme Court’s historic reversal of its ill-founded abortion precedents, we are officially living in the Dobbs era.”

This last line is crucial to the narrative Marjorie is creating: that Dobbs represents the end of abortion, forever. She pulls on the particular component of collective memory, marking Dobbs as the beginning of an abortion-free America. She paints Democrats and pro-choice activists as scaremongering and deceptive but ultimately helpless, and claims that their cause was unjust and unsustainable from its inception.

The injustice of their stance, Marjorie argues, is abortion itself: “To be absolutely clear, abortion is not healthcare. It is not a treatment for miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy – even Planned Parenthood knows that. As Dr. Christina Francis, head of an organization that represents thousands of pro-life OB-GYNs, puts it, ‘The only intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby.’”

The portion of Marjorie’s narrative that she doesn’t claim outright is that Dr. Francis’ pro-life organization is large and credible. This organization, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has 3,807 followers on Twitter – by comparison, the pro-reproductive-health-care organization Physicians for Reproductive Health has 29,946, which is a little more than seven times larger.

Jasanoff takes her article in an entirely different direction, veering away from the topic of abortion entirely: “The ‘life’ the Supreme Court and its supporters presume to speak for is a life stripped of connection, purpose, and meaning. Dobbs reduces the cultural complexity of pregnancy, motherhood, and family to the right of each individual conceptus to be born alive. This reductionism flies in the face of women’s claims to equal opportunity… Rights, moreover, are not static principles, like preserved specimens pinned forever to the text of an aging parchment. They are reframed in keeping with our knowledge, our capabilities, and our aspirations.”

Again, Jasanoff points out the processual and temporal nature of collective memory, as they pertain to the rights outlined in documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Jasanoff claims that the Supreme Court, Marjorie, and other pro-life advocates are attempting to redefine the right to life as a right to be born, and nothing more.

This assessment of the Supreme Court’s opinion is accurate. In their opinion piece, the Court supports Roe’s penumbral establishment of a right to privacy, but not its protection of abortion rights: “What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is [that abortion] destroys what Roe termed ‘potential life’ and what the law challenged in this case calls an ‘unborn human being.’ None of the other decisions cited… involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.”

With this claim, the Court espouses itself to narratives like Marjorie’s. Rather than outlining abortion as a matter of women’s rights, the Court defines embryos and fetuses as the central parties of interest. Only time will tell whose narrative of Roe will prevail.

Alex Oakes

• Works Cited:

• (APA website citations) Lastname, Firstname. “Webpage Title.” ParentWebsiteName, url.
• (Bluebook Supreme Court citations) Case v. Title, Volume # U.S. Page # (Year). URL
• [this line and the above 2 lines are for reference, and will be removed for the finished page.]
• Dannenfelser, Marjorie. “Supreme Court abortion ruling puts fight for life in new Dobbs era.” Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-puts-fight-life-dobbs-era.
• Chenoweth, Erica et. al. “Roe v. Wade has been overturned. What does that mean for America?” Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/fairness-justice/roe-v-wade-has-been-overturned-what-does-mean.
• Dobbs v. Jackson, 19 1932 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf.

The 50th Anniversary of Roe v Wade (1973) that had the intentions to occur on January 22, 2023, meant to be a day of celebration and hope for a bettering future and have many women gathering together to commemorate the joyous occasion. That opportunity was taken away from many individuals around the United States of America due to the case’s overturning by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). The overturning of this case created an uprising within younger and more democratic generations who wish to have had the opportunity to live in a country where the rights provided by the Roe v Wade case were never non-occurring.

The first march in support of Roe v Wade in 1973 had hopes that women would have the right to their bodies through the actions of Jane Roe, otherwise known as Norma McCorvey. These women wanted the same reproductive rights that Roe v Wade highlights to be included in the Constitution, so they rioted and protested. Once the Supreme Court came to the decision to make abortion a constitutional right, many celebrated with annual protests on the anniversary of the case decision. Yet, they knew that even though they were successful in the Roe v Wade case, they had to continue fighting to keep them. Unfortunately, the right to an abortion (across the states) got overturned almost seven months before the 50th anniversary would have occurred.

When the Supreme Court’s decision of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization became apparent, more than 200 Women’s March events in about 46 states took place; all which condemned the court’s decision.{3} This ruling leaves the choice up to the individual states to choose whether or not to ban/restrict abortion rights. Thus, this would mean the removal of those rights from the people. A major protest being in Washington D.C. at Freedom Plaza, with thousands gathered in protest of the court’s ruling, brought many together in despair. These Women’s March events, motivate by the recent loss of federal protection, are now dedicated to gaining state’s protections. Although many individuals’ reproductive rights were lost due to the court’s ruling, they still held hope and did not allow fear to intervene with their goals. With their eyes now focused on state politics, many organizations are now trying to educate younger voters and engage them into the ongoing conversations of abortion rights. This is done to initiate them in the discussion for the future of women in the United States.

Every year since 1973, activists in support for abortion rights gathered on Jan.22 for what was once known as “Roe v Wade Day” to celebrate the granted the constitutional rights to abortion. The most devasting component of the Women’s March events is the understanding that many veteran activist cam back out to protest once more. These are the same people that protested pre-Roe for the right to their bodies and thought that they finally achieved that goal, are now protesting once more to regain those same rights.

On what would have been the 50th Anniversary of Roe v Wade, Jan. 22, 2023, dozens of cities rallied in support of the those abortion rights. This was a Women’s March iteration; a protest series that started in 2017 when President Donald J. Trump became president. {1} This protest series followed the annual anti-abortion demonstrations of “March for Life” events, which became a victory rally that celebrated the overturning of Roe. This march showcased more in a pep-rally way, with drummers and people waving banners and flags. With slogans like “I am the Post-Roe Generation” and “Let Life Happen”, these anti-abortion activists celebrated with implications that their fight was still not finished and want a full band on abortion.

As the protestors gather nationwide once again in support for abortion access, a new feeling that does not resemble celebration is created. Instead, painful emotions are being felt: anger, uncertainty, fear, and grief. In the current post-Roe world, many are reflecting on the possibility for reproductive rights and still hold hope for the future. While many are mourning for their loss of reproductive rights, the anti-abortion protestors gather for the annual March for Life event with the theme of “Next Steps: Marching in a Post-Roe America”. {2} The future of Women’s marches are going to resemble pre-Roe protests since it appears we have “moved backwards in time”. While many see the overturning of Roe v Wade as an identification to celebrate, many view it as if we have regressed as a society instead of moving forward. This viewpoint has sparked many to continue fighting for their reproductive rights and others to continue their goal to ban abortion completely. These two opposing sides have their own marches, for their own personal beliefs; but this divide of the country seems like it will continue.

—Shaelynn Grifaldo

Work Citations

{1} Russell, J., & Sasani, A. (2023). Women’s March Holds Nationwide Rallies on 50th Anniversary of Roe. New York Times.

{2} Wolf, Z. (2023). Republicans are now splintering over abortion rights. CNN.

{3} Noor, P. (2023). Women’s March draws thousands across US after Roe v Wade overturned. The Guardian.

In order to make decisions related to women’s bodies, the Supreme Court has cited Constitutional Amendments that both implicitly and explicitly guarantee the right to privacy in different aspects. The Constitution never outright states a right to privacy related to the body which has made the decisions for court justices in privacy-related cases and on what privacy entails incredibly ambiguous. The usage of the Constitution to defend bodily autonomy and interpret what privacy entails has differed by both specific justice and case. 

While not all Amendments related to privacy are applicable in terms of rights to bodily autonomy, many have been used in court cases to defend other personal rights throughout history. The 1st Amendment has been used to protect both freedoms of religion but also the privacy of religious choice from others. The 3rd Amendment has been used to protect an individual’s privacy in the home as it makes the forced housing of soldiers illegal, and the 4th Amendment explicitly protects citizens from unreasonable searches & seizures.

Some Amendments have been used to protect both aspects of privacy related to the body and otherwise. Most commonly, the 5th, 9th, & 14th Amendments have been used to defend and protect rights to privacy related to the body and specifically, abortion rights.

5th Amendment

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.“

– U.S. Constitution

The 5th Amendment explicitly protects Americans from self-incrimination and therefore the disclosure of personal information is, in some cases, protected and this has been used to protect abortion in cases post-Roe where federal restrictions on abortion were found to violate the Due Process Clause. For example, in Harris v. McRae (1980), the Hyde Amendment, which limited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through the Medicaid program was challenged based on the 5th Amendment, but the court found that the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Due Process Clause [1]. However, while the court maintained that states using Medicaid funding did not have to fund medically necessary abortions, the majority did reaffirm the Roe decision by stating that the government may not “place obstacles in the path of a woman’s exercise of her freedom of choice” [2]. Even in cases where the Supreme Court disagreed with certain conditions related to abortion rights, the 5th Amendment was still cited as a protection against the removal of a women’s right to choose.  

9th Amendment

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

– U.S. Constitution

The 9th Amendment protects individuals from government infringement on their rights even if said rights are not explicitly stated elsewhere in the Constitution and it has been used in the past by the Supreme Court to defend citizens’ rights to privacy. After the Supreme Court decision that the Constitution did not protect the right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), many that criticized the decision cited the 9th Amendment [3]. Many argued that the decision disregarded the 9th Amendment and that Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which decided a ban on contraceptives violated the constitutional right to privacy correctly cited not only the 9th Amendment but also the 1st, 3rd, 4th, & 5th [3]. Together, in the written opinion, Justices Goldberg and Brennan as well as Chief Warren stated that “the right to privacy was embodied in ‘the language and history of the Ninth Amendment’” [3]. 

14th Amendment

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” 

– U.S. Constitution

Finally, the 14th Amendment has been used in a plethora of cases to prohibit states from enacting laws that infringe on bodily autonomy related to any rights protected in the first 13 Amendments. With the Roe v. Wade case, the 14th Amendment specifically was used to recognize abortion as a fundamental right [4]. In the majority opinion, abortion was protected as a fundamental liberty that allows individuals to make their own decisions about children and family-related issues [4]. This right allowed for the protection of reproductive autonomy under the 14th Amendment’s right to life, liberty, and equal protection. However, in the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) case, the Supreme Court found that there is no constitutional right to abortion thus overruling both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey where the court stated that “state deprivation of liberty” included, “the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy” [5]. This decision came after over 100 years of precedent by the Court that the 14th Amendment protected a woman’s right to privacy related to family, marriage, and childbirth [5]. 

While the Supreme Court may have ruled against a women’s right to abortion and thus effectively redacted the use of these Amendments as Constitutional protection of bodily autonomy, the U.S. has still ratified international human rights treaties that outright protect reproductive privacy. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention Against Torture (CAT), and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) have all been ratified by the U.S. and all explicitly protect reproductive autonomy [4]. International human rights law has not been used in decision-making on reproductive rights by the Supreme Court, but past Justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg have turned to human rights treaties as citations for their choices publicly [4]. While direct enforcement of these treaties against U.S. Courts is not possible, it is clear that the removal of reproductive rights protections is a direct violation, and we may see these treaties used to defend bodily autonomy by future justices.

Throughout our lifetimes we have seen the way that abortion and reproductive rights have been remembered change both societally and legally. Individual justices hearing the same case have even remembered the impacts of abortion rights differently because of the personal significance and memories surrounding such a controversial topic and thus they themselves have acted as vessels of memory for the abortion debate with each case heard and each ruling overturned. While only the cultural memory of Roe and its impacts remain, it is clear the issue will long be remembered, whether positively or negatively even if these memories differ between individuals based on their upbringing, political opinions, or other identifying factors. These memories will be constantly evolving as new decisions are heard and old decisions are reinforced or overturned. With the vagueness of Constitutional protections for abortion rights, there is no clear prediction as to what the future holds for women’s rights post-Roe, but one thing is clear, the memory of Roe has not and will not be forgotten anytime soon.

– Grace Lena

Work Cited:

[1] Legal Information Institute. “Amdt5.4.6.9.2 Right to an Abortion.” Cornell Law School (n.d.). https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion. 

[2] Justia. “Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).” Supreme Justia (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/297/#tab-opinion-1953689.

[3] Watkins Jr., William. “Left Libertarians, Dobbs, and the Ninth Amendment.” Independent Institute (November 17, 2022). https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14346#_ftn25.

[4] Center for Reproductive Rights. “Constitutional Protection for the Right to Abortion: From Roe to Casey to Whole Woman’s Health.” Center for Reproductive Rights (n.d.). https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/factsheets/Constitutional-Protection-for-the-Right-to-Abortion-Fact-Sheet2.pdf.

[5] Center for Reproductive Rights. “The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14th Amendment.” Center for Reproductive Rights (n.d.). https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Final-14th-Amendment-Report-7.26.22.pdf.

[6] Kilgore, Ed. “Kansas Supreme Court Recognizes State Constitutional Right to an Abortion.” Intelligencer (April 26, 2019). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/kansas-recognizes-state-constitutional-right-to-abortion.html

I will be examining how the LGBTQIA+ community has contributed to the memory surrounding Roe v. Wade noting the decades long advocacy for reproductive rights and access to abortion rights regardless of gender. LGBTQIA+ individuals face unique challenges when it comes to reproductive healthcare which comes in the form of discrimination from healthcare dependent on practice and state as well as discerning what affordable care in the context of getting gender-affirming care or needs pertaining to sexual health/orientation. LGBTQIA have critical in the fight for reproductive justice through distributing contraception, comprehensive sex education and so forth. However, in my examination, I will focus on how these ongoing queer demonstrations have been largely ignored or censored in mainstream political media/discourse.

Roe. V Wade was a landmark case in American history that helped pave the way for reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. However, unbeknownst to the American masses, the memory surrounding the case and its significance has been largely influenced by LGBTQIA+ community. This community has played a critical role in ensuring that the case remains a significant part in our nation’s history even after it was overturned. Despite their contributions, the memory of the LGBTQIA+ community’s impact on the case has been largely ignored by society out of shame and fear.

The community has contributed to the memory in several ways. Firstly, the community has been actively involved in the fight for reproductive rights. Many LGBTQIA+ identifying individuals have personal experiences with gender discrimination and oppression, and they understand the importance of bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions about one’s own body. This is especially true in a time in which healthcare providers have displayed gender discrimination in distributing gender-affirming care. As a result, they have been strong proponents as well as allies in the fight for reproductive rights.

Additionally, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a key role in providing resources and support for people seeking abortions. Many LGBTQIA+ organizations have provided financial assistance, transportation, and other resources to help people get access to abortion services long before and notably after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This support has been especially crucial in ensuring people have access to safe and legal abortions. This is important for the reason that most areas and states have begun to have abortion access that is limited or restricted.

Furthermore, the community has also been instrumental in advocating for the rights of their own individual who seek abortion services. Reproductive rights and LGBTQIA+ rights are not mutually exclusive but rather inextricably linked. As I mentioned before, many LGBTQIA+ individuals have faced discrimination and stigma when seeking reproductive healthcare which includes but is not limited to abortion services. The community has worked to address these issues by advocating for the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals in reproductive health care policies and fighting against discrimination.

Despite the significant contributions of the community to the memory surrounding Roe v. Wade, their impact is chosen to be ignored by the broader American society. This can be attributed to a variety of factors, including homophobia, transphobia, and a lack of understanding within religious and moral circles. It all boils down to a lack of understanding of how intersectional the issue is in the context of reproductive and queer rights.

Research has shown that discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals is still prevalent in healthcare settings. A study published in the Journal of Women’s health found that queer and gender-non-conforming individuals who seek reproductive healthcare services are more likely to face discrimination and stigma are more likely to face discrimination and stigma than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. This discrimination can lead to feelings of shame, fear, and isolation, and can make it more difficult for members of the community to seek out or access the care they need. 

As if that is not enough, the impact of the LGBTQIA+ community on the memory surrounding Roe v. Wade has been largely ignored in American mainstream media and education. A study published in the Journal of LGBT Youth found that queer history is often left out of history textbooks and curriculums despite significant contributions of the community to American history. For instance, Carmen Vasquez was a significant queer Latinx-American activist that discussed how gay and lesbian people were discriminated against on the basis of access to fertility treatments. This lack of representation and access to care perpetuates a deliberate erasure of queer individuals not only visually but physically too.

Additionally, the community faces further erasure within the reproductive rights movement itself. A study published in the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services found that many reproductive rights organizations do not actively seek out the involvement of LGBTQIA+ individuals or address their unique needs and experiences adequately, prioritizing cisgender and heterosexual women instead. This lack of inclusion can further marginalize a community that is already disregarded and limits their ability to contribute to the movement.

In conclusion, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a significant role in the memory surrounding Roe v. Wade, even after the landmark case was overturned. Their contributions have included activism, support for people of all sexual and gender orientations seeking abortions, and advocacy for the rights of queer individuals who seek reproductive healthcare services themselves. Despite their impact, however, the community’s contributions has continued to be largely ignored.

Works Cited

Anderson, Kelly. “LGBT Reproductive Rights: An Interview with Carmen Vazquez.” off our backs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2005, pp. 44-47.

Ball, Arnetha F., and Cynthia A. Tyson, editors. Studying Diversity in Teacher Education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011.

“Not Up for Debate: LGBTQ People Need and Deserve Tailored Sexual and Reproductive Health Care.” Guttmacher Institute, 16 November 2020, https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/11/not-debate-lgbtq-people-need-and-deserve-tailored-sexual-and-reproductive-health. Accessed 14 April 2023.“

Queering Reproductive Health, Rights & Justice.” National LGBTQ Task Force, https://www.thetaskforce.org/reproductive-justice/. Accessed 14 April 2023.

North Carolina has a history of restricting abortions. Since the 19^th century the state has imposed restrictions on abortion by looking at fetuses as a separate entity that deserves their own set of rights. In 1881, abortions were made illegal after the “quickening” which is a term used to describe the point when someone who is pregnant begins to feel the movements of the unborn child [1]. This is related to the debate today about when the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human baby that deserves the rights we have as sovereign citizens today. Without the modern scientific methods of today, much more value was placed on hearing a heartbeat or feeling the fetus move, both of which are superficial methods compared to the way we make these decisions today. The first image of a fetus was taken by Lennart Nilsson, named ‘Foetus 18 Weeks,’ and put on the cover of life magazine in April 1965. This image was later used by anti-abortion advocates and helped the abortion debate to become mainstream [2]. This debate led to a push against abortion restrictions and in 1967 the law was modified to loosen the restrictions in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. In 1973 with Roe v. Wade, the consensus among scientists was that the fetus should not be considered a separate entity in any state until it is “viable,” which means a baby that can live outside of the mother [3]. The youngest example of true “fetal viability” is 21 weeks [4] however it is generally considered to be between 23-24 weeks. North Carolina banned abortion after 20 weeks that same year, however, it could not be enforced because Roe v. Wade took precedence. In 2011 North Carolina passed what is known as the TRAP law: the Women’s Right to Know Act which mandated extensive counseling prior to an abortion. In 2015, North Carolina updated the bill, calling it the Women and Children Protection Act.

TRAP law: Women’s Right to Know Act

The official wording of the Women’s Right to Know Act is “No abortion shall be performed upon a woman in this State without her voluntary and informed consent. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if all the following conditions are satisfied [5].” The bill then has a list of things that anyone getting an abortion must be told and shown 72 hours before the procedure. Like a concealed carry permit in which a person must take a gun safety class and then wait for approval for up to 45 days, as stated by Paul Stam, “These laws ensure that citizens have the time and information to make the best decision possible [6].” Additionally, the bill required patients under 18 to have permission from a parent or guardian, and it required the patient to view the fetus in real time. The bill vetoed by the Governor of NC, but her veto was overridden, however the bill was changed to only require a 24-hour waiting period. Many people considered the bill unconstitutional. In a paper titled, “The North Carolina Women’s Right to Know Act: An Unconstitutional Infringement on a Physician’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech,” Ryan Bakelaar points out that, “By requiring that he verbally describe, in detail, ultrasonographic findings regarding fetal anatomy, it compels him to engage in content-based speech as part of the State’s admitted attempt to promote life and discourage abortion [7].” So, while some believe anyone getting an abortion have learn the material to give fully informed consent, others believe that it is unconstitutional to force it upon the doctors and the patients. In fact, one study published in 2015 found that after interviewing 31 abortion providers, every single one had negative opinions about the WRTK law [8].

Updated Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015

In May 2014 the Americans United for Life were fight for informed consent as the abortion activists were fighting against it [9]. As a result, in December 2014, the federal court ruled that forcing a patient to view an ultrasound 4 hours before an abortion was a violation of the First Amendment and so the North Carolina Legislature was forced to amend the bill [10]. On May 27, 2015, a new bill was adopted titled “Women and Children’s Protection Act.” In it, they took out the required ultrasound and reinstated the 72-hour waiting period between a consultation and the abortion. During the consultation a patient is still required to learn about many aspects of the operation as well as resources available if she decides to keep the baby [11]. When writing the bill, they included multiple sections as a tactic to discourage people from voting against the bill. One part of the bill deals with statutory rape and domestic violence, while another section introduces more abortions provisions. If anyone voted against the bill, the republicans could claim that that person was against those issues that almost everyone has stood for [12].

Conclusion: The fetus as an entity and the struggle for control over memory

Both the Women’s Right to Know Act and the Women and Children’s Protection Act are designed to make a person think twice before getting an abortion. They view fetuses as both a potential cause of burden but also present the possibility for them to be a good thing. However, those bills do not view the fetus as a fully sovereign individual. From the outside, they might appear to support Women in making the best possible informed decision, but with so many people claiming these provisions are unconstitutional, is it time to rethink the abortion laws in North Carolina? This still leaves the question of when we should treat the fetus as an individual deserving of rights, and while North Carolina keeps tightening abortion restrictions, others say this will lead to disaster as they push against the idea that a fetus should have rights [13]. With Roe v Wade overturned, the memory of abortion is being stolen by politicians to push their agenda. Instead of letting others dictate the popular memory, it is important to use research to create new ideas and to filter mainstream memories through the lens science and morality.

Works Cited:

1. Donnelly, Claire. “Laws Regulating Abortion in North Carolina Date Back to 1881.” WFAE 90.7 – Charlotte’s NPR News Source (June 1, 2022). https://www.wfae.org/health/2022-06-01/laws-regulating-abortion-in-north-carolina-date-back-to-1881
2. Jansen, Charlotte. “Foetus 18 Weeks: The Greatest Photograph of the 20th Century?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media (November 18, 2019). https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/nov/18/foetus-images-lennart-nilsson-photojournalist
3. Valade, Jodie. “Timeline of NC Abortion Laws That Restricted Access to Care.” Charlotte Observer (June 24, 2022). https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article262252452.html#storylink=cpy
4. Echols, Hannah. “UAB Hospital Delivers Record-Breaking Premature Baby.” UAB News (November 10, 2021). https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12427-uab-hospital-delivers-record-breaking-premature-baby
5. North Carolina Legislature. “Article 1I.” ncleg.org (2011). https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_90/Article_1I.pdf
6. Stam, Paul Honorable. “Woman’s Right to Know Act: A Legislative History.” Issues in Law & Medicine 28, no. 1 (June 2012). https://www.proquest.com/docview/1038595437?parentSessionId=FjH2BC9vU4Ro6mX88%2Fs2ocJmBtMdkWd1M8to1szELU0%3D&accountid=14244
7. Bakelaar, Ryan. “The North Carolina Woman’s Right To Know Act: An Unconstitutional Infringement on a Physician’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech.” Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, no. 20.2 (2013). https://doi.org/10.36641/mjgl.20.2.north,  
8. Mercier, Rebecca J., Mara Buchbinder, Amy Bryant, and Laura Britton. “The Experiences and Adaptations of Abortion Providers Practicing under a New Trap Law: A Qualitative Study.” Contraception 91, no. 6 (2015): 507–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.03.003  
9. The Guardian. “Federal Court Rejects Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Law in North Carolina; Ruling Finds ‘Women’s Right to Know’ Law and ‘Real-Time View Requirement’ Was a Violation of the First Amendment.” Guardian News & Media, December 22, 2014. https://go-gale-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ps/i.do?p=BIC&u=unc_main&id=GALE%7CA397739299&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon
10. States News Service. “AUL FIGHTS FOR WOMEN’S RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR PREGNANCIES AS ABORTION INDUSTRY FIGHTS INFORMED CONSENT IN NORTH CAROLINA.” States News Service, May 8, 2014. https://go-gale-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ps/i.do?p=BIC&u=unc_main&id=GALE|A370294172&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon
11. NC Legislature “Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015” (April 22, 2015) https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H465v3.pdf
12. Hoban, Rose. “New Abortion Rules Will Become Law.” North Carolina Health News (April 23, 2021). https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2015/06/04/12713/.
13. “Further Restricting Abortions in NC Will Have ‘Chilling’ Effect, Doctors Say.” Duke Today, February 17, 2023. https://today.duke.edu/2023/02/further-restricting-abortions-nc-will-have-chilling-effect-doctors-say

In the summer of 1986 an American singer known monomymously as Madonna released a song titled “Papa Don’t Preach” on her third studio album True Blue. The album was released nearly thirteen years after the final verdict of Roe v. Wade established reproductive rights as liberties in line with those granted by the Fourteenth Amendment. The prominence of the song coincided with the presence of Music Television or MTV for short, a public channel whose broadcasts influenced the youth popular culture of the time[5]. The music video would be broadcast for teens to listen to and watch spreading awareness of the song. The song was a commercial success reaching Billboard’s hot one hundred [2]. Despite its popularity, the song has been controversial since its release for its portrayal of teenage pregnancy and female promiscuity. The popularity of the artist and song has kept it in circulation through today’s society, having been referenced to through various other pop culture outlets as well as its adoption as an anti-abortion proclamation. 

After its original release, the song was criticized for the lyrics as they were thought to glamorize and promote teen pregnancy. The song chronicles a teenage daughter’s discussion with her father in which she is confessing to him about her pregnancy. The song places Madonna as the pregnant teen and the listener as ‘Papa’. Conservative groups believed the song pushed teenagers to accept the roles of parenthood despite their unpreparedness. It was argued that neglecting to acknowledge the struggles and dangers of young parenthood overlooked the harm it does to both the child and the young parent. Supporters of abortion found it to be problematic because it pushed for teenagers to accept pregnancy neglecting to acknowledge the loosening of sanctions that once made access to safe abortions improbable. During this time laws around the country were being rewritten to modify restrictions and bans on abortion making it a safer option to terminate a pregnancy. These groups thought it did a disservice to young girls by not informing them that there were other options available to them regarding pregnancy. 

The lyrics of the song have been broken down and continuously reconstructed in the public eye. It wasn’t until a few years after the initial release that supporters of the pro-life movement saw it as an opportunity to promote their anti-abortion stance. Madonna unintentionally created an anti-abortion song based on one lyric that is repeated three times throughout the entirety of the song “I made up my mind, I’m keeping my baby”[1]. The song was portrayed as having an anti-abortion view, a fact that was then mobilized to influence younger girls, like the girl in the video, to decide for themselves to keep their child and not be pushed into making a decision they didn’t want. The use of the song was similar to that of advertisements in which celebrities sponsor products. In 2009 Madonna issued a statement apologizing for the misinterpretation of the song as being anti-abortion and officially announced that her intention for the song was not to push for anti-abortion, rather it was to embrace womanhood and fight patriarchy [5]. In her article, The Sonic Politics of the US Abortion Wars, Rebecca Lentjes discusses how protestors have weaponized music for their arguments often lining the parking lots of abortion clinics to cause disturbances to the women attempting to get treated. “Papa Don’t Preach” was unique because it was a well-known song, it was a piece of popular culture as opposed to the traditional Christian music that has since become dominant since Madonna’s statement.

Madonna’s version of the song was the profession of a teenager’s ascension into womanhood. The song found the daughter deciding for herself to keep her baby and not obey her father. The intention of the song was to portray challenging male authorities and patriarchy.  Feminists then proceeded to take up the mantle and claim Papa Don’t Preach as a feminist song. The fact that the teen chooses to keep the baby is an expression of her rights, the same rights granted to women that chose to have an abortion through the ruling of Roe v. Wade. The daughter’s disobedience to her father echoed female disillusion with the patriarchy governing women’s bodies. The video and the lyrics were broadcasts of reclaiming womanhood that challenge the oppression and stigmatization of unmarried pregnant women and teens, an issue that remains prevalent today.The song remains in circulation today and has become heavily ingrained in the topic of abortion. Recently a television series named Grey’s Anatomy aired an episode titled “Papa Don’t Preach”. In the episode the main character discovers she is expecting, upon discussion with a female doctor, she learns about a take-home abortion pill and ultimately decides to take the doctor’s offer. “Papa Don’t Preach” established a platform for the media to portray abortion in a public light. The song opened a doorway for public awareness of social issues by reaching into private life through the consumption of popular culture. Through her various concerts, Madonna continued to perform her song further expanding on the theme of spreading social issues into private life.

Victoria Rodriguez

Works Cited:

[1] Ciccone, M.(2011, June 30)  Papa Don’t Preach. YouTube, YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G333Is7VPOg. Accessed 20 Apr. 2023. 

[2] Dullea, G. (1986, September 18). Madonna’s New Beat Is A Hit, But Song’s Message Rankles. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/18/nyregion/madonna-s-new-beat-is-a-hit-but-song-s-message-rankles.html

[3] Lentjes, R. (2021). The Sonic Politics of the US Abortion Wars. American Music 39(3), 301-324. 

https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/837101.

[4] Prieto‐Arranz, J. I. (2012). The semiotics of performance and success in Madonna. The Journal of popular culture, 45(1), 173-196.

[5] Scaggs, A. (2009, October 29). Madonna Looks Back: The Rolling Stone Interview. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/madonna-looks-back-the-rolling-stone-interview-197575/

[6] Sisson, G. (2021). Prime-time abortion on Grey’s Anatomy: What do US viewers learn from fictional portrayals of abortion on television. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 53(1–2), 13–22. 

https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12183

[7] Soto, A. (2017, July 21). 1986: Papa Don’t Preach by Madonna. PBS North Carolina; PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/songs-of-the-summer-1986/

Though the iconic “Dirty Dancing Lift” and Patrick Swayze’s electric dance moves are doubtlessly what most people remember about the 1987 movie “Dirty Dancing,” the film carries a much more powerful message about the risks of illegal abortion. It not only provides a visual poignant argument for the pro-choice side of the Roe vs. Wade abortion debate, but its carefully designed plot ensures that the film’s memory will remain ever-present in the minds of all who watch its iconic scenes.

The film came out 14 years after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, but it was set in the year 1963, a time when abortion was largely illegal in the United States (King). On a summer family vacation at a mountain resort, when the protagonist, Baby, comes to learn that the lead entertainment dancer, Penny, is pregnant and needs an abortion, Baby asks her father, a physician, for money to pay for it; the movie’s plot centers around the need for Baby to fill in Penny’s role as lead dancer Johnny Castle’s partner. When Penny returns from the “procedure,” she is on the brink of death, as the “doctor” used nothing more than a “dirty knife and a folding table.” Baby’s father steps in to save her life, and is shocked to find out that the young man who impregnated Penny, who refused to take responsibility, was actually dating his eldest daughter throughout the summer.

The film brings to light several important issues plaguing U.S. society that still hold up today. The socioeconomic limits of Penny’s lifestyle from a life of poverty, coupled with sexual inequality and limited paternal responsibility laws, led to her feeling like she had no other way out. Viewers can clearly see that desperation and a lack of options drew her to a dangerous situation, and could have cost her her life.

The film’s screenwriters faced understandable opposition in the process of creating the abortion subplot. The portrayal of a doctor unquestionably saving a woman’s life when it had been threatened by a botched abortion was risky at the time, and truly had not been done before, despite the appearance of abortion in film since 1916 (A Century…).

Screenwriter Eleanor Bergstein faced extreme pressure from corporate sponsors to remove the abortion story-line, but she believed it too crucial to the plot (King). She wanted young girls watching the movie to remember a time when abortions were illegal, so as to not take their rights for granted. The movie serves as a focus of memory that calls attention to the past as a way to show future generations a reality in which their current circumstances differ from (Nolan).

The film addresses the inequality in access to safe abortions based on class privilege, the physical danger in the practice of “under the table” abortion procedures, and the entirety of childbearing responsibility falling on a woman when she becomes pregnant. The film, which sold over 32 million copies worldwide, created an opportunity for abortion rights to be talked about more openly.

According to Quartz, around the time when the film first released, less than 40% of Americans believed under any circumstances that abortion should be legal, but in recent years that number has jumped to greater than 50%. The portrayal of abortion in film ensures that millions of people are going to be exposed to the reality of its illegality and the effects thereof, which leads to honest, open conversation.

In the present, as the debate has resurfaced, Jennifer Grey (“Baby”) has openly spoken out about being “horrified that this is really on the table again in 2022… Talk about being in the corner.” With the recycling of this famous line from the movie, Grey contributes to processual memory by applying the movie’s romantic story-line to the very real concept of limiting a woman’s freedom.

Moreover, the immortal movie has even more potential to impact future generations, as Jennifer Grey confirmed that there is a sequel in the making (Nardino). Though it is unclear how the subject of abortion might present itself in the new film, it is safe to assume that upcoming publicity for the movie will ignite memory of the original film, and call attention to the incendiary pro choice message behind the story.

Based on personal opinion and the assumed experience of most viewers, the movie effectively weaves the heavy subject of terminating a pregnancy into the story arc of a teenage romance, making the launch of this story appealing to all audiences. Memory of the movie is largely overshadowed by the chemistry between the two main characters, but upon further inspection, the driving force of the plot-line’s events stems from Penny’s situation. In doing so, the screenwriters sent lifelong memories of swoon to all who watch the film, and conveniently attached the secondary theme of reproductive rights.

At a time when women’s rights were stifled in popular media due to a lack of awareness and conversation, the 1987 film’s release guaranteed its success with the subtlety in its insurgency; it is with great anticipation that the film’s sequel does the same to engage current generations and beyond in pro-choice movements.

Nina Wozniak

Bibliography

“A Century of Abortion Onscreen, 1916-2016.” ANSIRH. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://www.ansirh.org/news/century-abortion-onscreen-1916-2016.

Herold, Steph. “From ‘Dirty Dancing’ to ‘Scandal,’ on-Screen Abortion Stories Carry Sway.” The New York Times. The New York Times, July 24, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/24/opinion/abortion-television-movies-dirty-dancing.html.

King, Georgia Frances. “How the Illegal Abortion in ‘Dirty Dancing’ Started Honest Dialogue about Reproductive Rights.” Quartz, March 28, 2019. https://qz.com/quartzy/1576857/dirty-dancing-started-a-dialogue-about-reproductive-rights.

Logan, Elizabeth. “Don’t Forget That ‘Dirty Dancing’ Has a Powerful pro-Choice Message.” Glamour. Glamour, May 13, 2022. https://www.glamour.com/story/dirty-dancing-powerful-pro-choice-message.

Nardino, Meredith. “Jennifer Grey: ‘Dirty Dancing’ Sequel Is ‘Tricky’ without Patrick Swayze.” Us Weekly, August 21, 2022. https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/everything-to-know-so-far-about-the-long-awaited-dirty-dancing-sequel/.
https://qz.com/quartzy/1576857/dirty-dancing-started-a-dialogue-about-reproductive-rights

Nolan, Emma. “’Dirty Dancing’ Writer Added Abortion Plot as Roe v. Wade Cautionary Tale.” Newsweek. Newsweek, May 4, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/dirty-dancing-writer-abortion-plot-roe-v-wade-cautionary-tale-1703487.

The recent overturn of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)–which laid the foundations for women’s autonomy in the healthcare system–has created barriers to abortions and OB-GYN health services similar to those that women fifty years ago experienced. The campaign to criminalize and ban abortion was formed in 1847 by the American Medical Association [1]. By 1910, abortion was illegal nationwide; it was not until the late 1960s that abortion reform began [1]. Hawaii, New York, Washington, and Alaska were the first states to legalize abortion beginning in 1970. [1]. Similarly, 13 states expanded their laws to allow abortion in special circumstances, but 33 states still banned abortion [2]. Yet, these expansions left gaps in healthcare coverage. 

Even with expanding abortion laws, only privileged groups could exercise these rights. Wealthy white women were the majority, as they “accounted for over three-quarters of all abortions” in 1973 [3]. Wealthy women could afford to fight for access to hospital abortions in court or could gain approval for an abortion if they proved that their pregnancy would endanger their life or physical or mental health [4]. Anyone with money could also travel across the country to receive an abortion [5]. Many people chose to go to New York–a hotspot for abortions since its legalization in 1970 [6]. Two years after New York legalized abortions, “more than 400,000 abortions were performed in the state”; almost two-thirds were for women who did not live in the state [6]. Pamela Mason is one example of this [6]. As a college freshman living in Ohio in 1971, she could not have the procedure in that state, as it was heavily restricted [6]. Therefore, at ten weeks gestation, she “scraped together enough money [$150] to drive to New York City” as recommended to her by a clinic near her university [6]. It is important to note that she was only able to do this because it was 500 miles from Ohio; had she lived further west, this may not have been a viable option for her [6]. However, not everyone could afford a legal procedure. 

The expensive costs of travel and bans or restrictions in a majority of states forced women to find alternative methods of abortion, which further jeopardized their health. For many women who did not have access to legal abortion, they turned to self-induction [7]. This included purposely falling down stairs, ingesting poison, or using instruments, such as hangers or knitting needles, to attempt to induce an abortion [7]. In fact, self-inductions were so common that “hospitals had entire wards dedicated to caring for women suffering from health complications due to self-inductions[5]. For those who did not choose to perform a self-induced abortion, they turned to illegal, unregulated markets. That is why by 1965 “17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion” [8]. These illegal abortions entailed finding a provider who could perform the procedure safely, but criminally [7]. This risked the careers of professionals and the possible imprisonment of women [7]. Nonetheless, women turned to this solution rather than being forced to carry out their pregnancy. 

By the late 1960s, organizations were formed to help find safe alternatives for women [5]. The Clergy Consultation Service of Abortion helped start a referral service to access safe illegal abortions [5]. Similarly, the Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union founded an underground abortion service that provided “safe, inexpensive, and supportive illegal abortions” [5]. The organization posted phone numbers on bulletin boards that read “Pregnant, call Jane” around Chicago [2]. Through a channel of safe houses, the “Janes” were able to provide more than 11,000 abortions to women in their first and second trimesters; their safety was comparable to current legal medical facilities [5]. Yet, this was not the only illegal form of abortion. Another way women received abortions was by traveling outside the United States to access the procedure. Amna Nawaz, for example, had a foreign abortion in her twenties when she had an unplanned pregnancy [2]. She had to travel to a clinic in Puerto Rico because they were illegal in the state of New York [9]. 

Even with access to successful, illegal abortions, the ban and restrictions on abortions harmed women’s mental health. For example, Roberta Brandes Gratz, a journalist, remembers her own abortion [2]. During her operation, the anesthetic “didn’t take well” making her experience “partially painful” [2]. To make matters worse, she said “It was humiliating because I knew I was doing something illegal” [2]. Despite these tolls, “humiliation, agony and the risk of sterility or death [did] not deter American women from ending an average of one out of every five pregnancies by abortion” [9]. 

Women prior to 1973 exemplified the danger to women’s health and autonomy with the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Even with barriers to abortion, women will find a way to access it, even if it is unsafe or illegal. The fight for women’s reproductive rights is not over. In reflection on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, 

“While this Roe Anniversary marks a reminder of what we’ve lost, this is also a reminder that, as reproductive justice parents have long said, Roe was always the floor–not the ceiling–and now we must reimagine what is possible for our communities.” [10]. 

This vision of hope is much needed, as there is a lot of work for the United States to do in order to reinstate proper measures to protect the fundamental rights and safety of women. As a country, we must remember what women endured before Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to provide equal access to reproductive rights and build off of the foundations of those rulings to create a more equitable system.

By Catherine Kunz

Work Cited

1. Historical abortion law timeline: 1850 to Today. Planned Parenthood Action Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america/historical-abortion-law-timeline-1850-today
2. Nawaz, A., Buhre, M. L., & Quran, L. (2022, June 21). Women reflect on what life was like before Roe v. Wade. PBS. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/women-reflect-on-what-life-was-like-before-roe-v-wade
3. Kliff, S. (2021, November 25). Charts: How Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/ 
4. A brief history of abortion in the U.S. Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us 
5. The history of abortion law in the United States. Our Bodies Ourselves Today. (2023, March 24). Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/u-s-abortion-history/ 
6. Jacobs, J. (2018, July 19). Remembering an era before Roe, when New York had the ‘most liberal’ abortion law. The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/new-york-abortion-roe-wade-nyt.html 
7. NPR. (2019, May 20). What abortion was like in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade. NPR. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade 
8. Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact – Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2023, from https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf   
9. Stevens, E. (2022, June 24). When abortions were illegal and how women got them anyway. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/24/illegal-abortions-before-roe-dc/  
10. Spillar, K. (2023, January 22). Feminists react: 50 years after Roe, the fight is far from over. Ms. Magazine. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/21/feminists-react-50-years-after-roe/

AMST 102, Draft (accidentally updated my old post)

By Abhiram Bolisetty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

[1] https://www.lwv.org/blog/explaining-scotuss-abortion-decision-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization

[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-statement-supreme-court-ruling-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s  

[3] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-mitt-romney-the-39th-anniversary-roe-v-wade

[4] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state  

[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/

[6] https://reproductiverights.org/case/scotus-mississippi-abortion-ban/

[7] https://blog.apaonline.org/2022/07/25/what-should-philosophers-do-in-response-to-dobbs-a-conversation-with-ethicists/

[8] https://www.alamy.com/file-protesters-fill-the-street-in-front-of-the-supreme-court-after-the-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-in-washington-june-24-2022-support-for-abortion-rights-drove-women-to-the-polls-in-tuesdays-elections-but-for-many-the-issue-took-on-higher-meaning-part-of-an-overarching-concern-about-the-future-of-democracy-women-especially-democratic-women-were-more-likely-than-men-to-say-the-roe-v-wade-reversal-was-a-top-factor-in-their-voteap-photojacquelyn-martin-file-image505226478.html