Roe v. Wade, a flame set more than half a century ago, still burns with debate today. Regardless of whether you are a growing high school student or a government official, when it comes to topics like these, we start to think: who was right, and who was wrong? Can this even be settled?
Roe v. Wade: The Story
In 1969, Norma McCorvey - with the pseudonym Jane Roe - was pregnant with her third child and wanted an abortion. However, the Texas laws at the time prohibited abortion with the exception of abortion to save the mother’s life. This made it nearly impossible for her to have a safe and reliable abortion.
Luckily for McCorvey, she found herself the right lawyers. In 1970, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee filed a lawsuit against the Texas district attorney Henry Wade. In fact, these two lawyers have been looking for a pregnant woman to be the plaintiff as they have been looking for a case challenging the country’s widespread abortion bans. They asked whether McCorvey believed that abortion should be legal. When McCorvey was unsure, Weddington assured that a newly developed fetus is “just a piece of tissue” without human life. This fully convinced McCorvey. They then joined together with a Texan doctor - Dr. James Hallford - who recently faced charges against abortion in a lawsuit against Wade.
The debate was a long, hard battle. Roe claimed absolute privacy rights and how banning abortion is a violation of one's civil rights. They further alleged that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional, as it infringed the individual’s right to “liberty” under the 14th amendment, and the rights to marital, familial and sexual privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Altogether, Roe's Stance was that the right to abortion is absolute: a person should be entitled to end their pregnancy for any reason at any time in any way they choose.
The states protected its current abortion laws by putting forth three main arguments: that the states has an interest in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards and protecting prenatal life, that a fetus is nonetheless a “person” protected by the 14th amendment, and that protecting prenatal life from the time of conception is a compelling statess interest.
Finally, on January 22 1973, Roe won, with seven of the nine Supreme Court justices agreeing that the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment protected the right of an individual to choose to end their pregnancy prior to viability. Justices acknowledged that being forced to continue a pregnancy poses a lot of health issues, and that it was under an individual’s right to end their pregnancy. The previous abortion bans were ruled unconstitutional, and safe abortion was then vastly more accessible in the US.
But Was This The Right Decision?
Despite this case being overturned 50 years ago, it still sparks scrutiny today. The first strike concerns religious reasons; many religions emphasise the belief in the sanctity of life and consider it to be a gift from the higher powers. When looked through this perspective, abortion is seen as ending an innocent human’s life. Furthermore, many religions such as the Catholic faith believe that life begins at conception, considering a developing fetus as an individual with inherent rights and dignity. In consequence, taking the life of the fetus could be argued as infringing its rights as human. The religious stances also categorise abortion as violating God’s plan as pregnancy and birth is thought of being part of God’s big, divine plan, and that one should take more responsibility for their pregnancy.
Another big argument is the ethical duties. Some ethical perspectives mention the Right to Life which connects to the fundamental religious beliefs that life begins at conception - and that it is a moral obligation to protect and nurture it. To some extent, it is seen that the termination of pregnancy denies one’s future personhood and potential experiences the unborn fetus could have. Who knows - that fetus could become the future president! The intrinsic value of human life is an emphasised defence, stating that the ethical frameworks assert that human life is precious and not contingent upon factors such as development and circumstances of conception. It is another popular moral argument that we as human beings have the duty to protect and value other human lives, and abortion goes against all principles of it. Lastly, the ethical side suggests alternatives such as adopting a child instead of trying to conceive one when you have existing health conditions. This is due to it being morally preferable as it preserves the unborn child’s life and fulfils the dreams of other couples who wish to become parents without health concerns.
Finally, we cannot argue against abortion without discussing the health risks abortion poses. When aborting in the first seven weeks of pregnancy, a woman can take an abortion pill regimen (RU-486) to end their pregnancy. While this may be a relatively easier way to end a pregnancy, it may not be completely effective in some cases and its side effects include vaginal bleeding or spotting, cramps, pelvic pain, headache, tiredness, difficulty with sleep, anxiety and back or leg pain. When aborting in the later weeks or pregnancy (24-38 weeks), labour induction is required where medicine will be injected into the woman’s bloodstream and stimulate the process of artificial labour. This method poses even greater risks and can only be done if the doctor believes it is necessary to prevent death. Medical risks include high blood pressure, infection, stroke, heavy bleeding, ruptured womb, incomplete abortion, blood clots in the uterus and anaesthesia related complications. If labour induction cannot be proceeded, a woman goes through the Caesarean section. The Caesarean section is the removal of the baby by surgically opening the belly and womb. Complications from this method can be seen as similar to those in childbirth: infection, blood clots to the heart and brain (emboli), stomach contents breathed into the lungs (aspiration pneumonia), haemorrhage, incompletely abortion, cut or torn cervix and injury to the urinary tract. Many question whether all these risks are worth bearing for a woman to abort their conceived child, as these methods of abortion do not guarantee a healthy post-abortion life, or even life at all.
The Flame Today
But many believe that this wasn’t enough. The right to abortion still did not give people full access to abortion. Between 1973 and 2021, states enacted more than 1336 abortion restrictions. This resulted in the constitution being near meaningless like the same book with a different cover… while it was still standing. On June 24 2022, Roe v. Wade was officially overturned in the US Supreme Court, which led to outrage and protests. Even days ago on the 25th of April women of Idaho protested for the Emtala law - a law that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care regardless of ability to pay or insurance status - due to doctors treating women’s health as disposable during abortion. Many still advocate for abortion rights, and Roe v. Wade is today only seen as a major catalyst for these direct promotions. The value of Roe v. Wade slowly diminished throughout the years.
We, as equal human beings, have the duty to protect one another. It is important to consider both perspectives for concepts like these that can pose threats to life - or lives. This is not someone else’s problem. We are all living in this time and world. Whether you agree with Roe or Wade, it is crucial to treat this issue with respect, care, kindness and compassion.
Works Cited
Donegan, Moira. "The US Supreme Court Heard One of the Most Sadistic, Extreme Anti-Abortion Cases Yet." The Guardian, The Guardian, 25 Apr. 2024, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/25/supreme-court-idaho-anti-abortion-case.
Honderich, Holly. "The Federal Law Driving the Latest Abortion Battle at the US Supreme Court." BBC, 25 Apr. 2024, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68884207.
Louisiana Department of Health. "Abortion Methods & Medical Risks | La Dept. Of Health." Louisiana Department of Health, 2023, ldh.la.gov/page/abortion-methods-medical-risks.
Mehta, Samira. "There Is No One 'Religious View' on Abortion: A Scholar of Religion, Gender and Sexuality Explains." Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine, 24 June 2022, www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2022/06/24/there-no-one-religious-view-abortion-scholar-religion-gender-and-sexuality-explains.
Planned Parenthood. "Roe v. Wade: Behind the Case That Established the Legal Right to Abortion." Planned Parenthood Action, 2022, www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/roe-v-wade/roe-v-wade-behind-case-established-legal-right-abortion.
Temme, Laura. "Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need to Know." Findlaw, 21 Sept. 2021, supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html.
Comments