Special Edition: Strategies for the End of Roe
On Monday night, the news publication Politico leaked a draft of a majority Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Alito. The draft details the highly anticipated decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, known to the public as the case that could overturn Roe.
In the draft majority opinion, Justice Alito writes that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are incorrect decisions. Although they have been on the books for up to 50 years and are considered settled laws, the Supreme court overturned them; making access to abortion no longer a legally protected right. This decision does not agree with the majority of Americans and opens the door to eliminating freedoms to contraception and same-sex marriage.
The question that the Supreme Court took up for review is whether all pre-viability abortion bans are constitutional.
This question was disconcerting because abortion has been legal for 50 years. According to Republicans, no privacy rights are protected by the Constitution if it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution when it was ratified in the 1700s. In other words, only white men who were landowners had rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Unconstitional–overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Pro-Life Movement
The phrase “pro-life” comes from a 1970’s political movement. The movement primarily focused on abortion, with the stance that preborn lives were valuable and needed to be protected. However, the term has since developed a broader perspective valuing human life at every stage from conception to natural death. Those who affirm life take the position that all human lives have inherent value and should be treated with dignity.
The pro-life community is incredibly diverse, transcending all walks of life, but unified in its purpose.
Why Are People Pro-Life?
The reasons for identifying as pro-life are complex. They are often based on an individual’s lens through which they view the world. The more common reasons often fall into the following categories: moral, religious, and scientific.
The Moral Argument
The right to life is protected by the laws of the land. Yet, often the laws don’t recognize the preborn as human beings in need of protection. The pro-life movement affirms that human life begins at conception, and therefore equally deserving of protection and rights.
The Religious Argument
The pro-life position can be shaped by an individual’s religious or spiritual views. Christians, who believe in the Bible as God’s truth, hold the perspective that all human life is created in the image of God himself and should be treated with dignity.
Psalm 51:5-6 and Psalm 139: 13-16 point to God’s intricate design for those in the womb.
The Scientific Argument
The medical facts about pregnancy and fetal development present logical reasons why people are pro-life.
- Conception occurs when the sperm unites with an egg, also called fertilization. At this point, two separate sets of chromosomes (one from the sperm and one from the egg) create one unique strand of DNA.
- 5-6 weeks after fertilization a baby begins developing arms and legs. Facial features start to emerge. A fetal heartbeat can be detected by an ultrasound.
- By the 8th week of development, all the major organs are present. All aspects of the upper and lower limbs are distinct. The connections for breathing are beginning to extend from the throat to the lungs.
- During weeks 9-14, a baby’s automatic reflexes can be detected. Such reflexes include kicking, turning, and thumb-sucking. Fetal viability starts at 24 weeks.
Who started the Anti-Abortion Movement?
The abortion reform movement was made possible by a larger cultural shift in Americans’ ideas about reproduction and abortion.
Daniel Williams has shown in his history of the movement, that it has roots going back to at least the 1930s and 1940s, and there was no clear political divide.
Before the 19th century, abortion had been legal (in some instances) throughout much of the United States. Most of the early regulations were aimed at protecting women from unsafe practices, with “quickening”—when the baby could be felt moving—serving as a line for when abortion was permitted. However, as medical technology advanced and scientists were able to see the combination of genetic material from the parents that resulted in a fertilized egg, the line moved further backward. By the early 1900s, almost every state had criminalized abortion, though this was rarely enforced.
At that time, Catholics (and it was primarily Catholics) were the strongest opponents of abortion because it (along with contraception) was a violation of the official church teaching on the sanctity of human life. These Christians drew on the long tradition of Catholic social teaching and argued that care for the poor was a duty for Christians. Based on their theology, they found it easy to advocate for FDR’s New Deal program which created a stronger social safety net for the poor. And in the context of that moment, it was the poor, just as today, who were the most likely to receive (and suffer) from an abortion. Because of the limits on when doctors could provide abortions legally, it was common for women to obtain illegal and unsafe procedures that threatened their lives.
Also, mainline Protestants, who made up the largest section of the religious landscape at the time, were moving from apathetic to sympathetic supporters, especially in the 1960s. Several states passed laws based on a revision to the legal framework proposed by the American Law Institute which allowed abortion for the physical or mental health of the mother, fetal deformity, or if the pregnancy were the result of rape, incest, or some other illegal action.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, passed a resolution at its 1971 annual meeting affirming the sanctity of life but also calling on Southern Baptists to work for legislation that would allow for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.
However, in the 1970s, with the rise of the Religious Right and the work of figures such as Paul Weyrich (a Catholic) and Jerry Falwell (a Baptist), evangelicals would mobilize on the issue and bring it into the social consciousness of the average individual. This blending of Catholic and Protestant groups marked a pivotal turning point for the movement as it breathed new life and energy into it. The Catholics had already built out infrastructure for working against abortion, most notably the National Right to Life Committee which was started in 1968 by Monsignor James T. McHugh at the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, Catholics had been losing the fight in almost every instance as state after state passed more liberal abortion laws. They also found themselves unable to bring in the support of others because of the anti-Catholic bias that was common in American religion at the time.
With the support of Protestants, particularly evangelicals who were politically minded, the movement came to be a major wedge issue. Though recent scholars such as Randall Balmer have cast doubts on the claim that it was abortion that galvanized the leaders of the Religious Right, providing evidence of the late opposition to the cause, there is also substantial evidence that for many rank-and-file evangelicals, this topic captured their hearts like nothing else.2
The face of the pro-life movement has also changed in recent years. What was once a (largely) white Catholic movement has come to be increasingly characterized by religious and racial diversity. With the influx of evangelicals and charismatic groups (and even some who are atheists), the pro-life movement has become more religiously diverse. Further, Latino and African American pro-life advocates, who are overrepresented in abortion statistics, have become important members of the coalitions working for systemic change in abortion laws.
There is considerable evidence to show that the pro-life argument is having an effect. At every turn, there are threats (as with the recent laws passed in Virginia and New York legislatures), but the United States is growing increasingly pro-life.4 According to the Guttmacher Institute, the rate of abortions has fallen below pre-Roe levels and continues to drop.5 Though some of this is attributable to easier contraceptive access and decreasing rates of teen pregnancy, it is also the result of the work of the pro-life movement setting forth the dignity of the unborn for almost a century. What began with mostly Catholics alone now includes thousands from across the ideological and religious spectrum each year proclaiming the value of each person from womb to tomb.6 As David French has noted, though there has been gridlock in Washington, the culture itself is becoming more pro-life.7 One reporter estimated that almost half of the attendees at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., in 2010 were under the age of 30.8 And with the advances in medical technology, the point of viability continues to be pushed further back as early in some cases as 22 weeks.9
In looking ahead, a post-Roe world—a major goal for the movement—would bring the cause back to the states to advance legislation. With an end to abortion, there would undoubtedly be an increased need for the pro-life movement to show that it is not just opposed to abortion but truly cares about mother and child, from womb to tomb.
Action
In 1976, the movement secured the passage of the Hyde Amendment which prevents the use of federal funds for abortion. And in 1984, the Mexico City policy, enacted by President Reagan, prevented U.S. aid to foreign countries from being used for abortion.
The first organized action was initiated by U.S. Catholic bishops who recommended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban abortion
. Roe v. Wade was considered a major setback by anti-abortion campaigners.
The pro-life movement has gone beyond just advocating for change to legal laws and now works to make abortion unthinkable. Through the vital work of pregnancy resource centers, churches and nonprofits provide medical care to women who would be seeking an abortion. This is a direct challenge to the work of organizations such as Planned Parenthood which profit from providing easy access to abortion for low-income and minority women.
Forethought
The pro-life movement has, in recent years, expanded its vision from looking only at abortion to a more holistic pro-life ethic that is “womb to tomb.” While not disregarding the work that remains to be done in advocating for the unborn, pro-life advocates have articulated a theology that recognizes the inherent dignity of individuals, no matter their race, mental capacity, or stage of development. Looking to combat all challenges to human dignity, this new pro-life movement has advocated for changes to the way immigrants and refugees are treated, opposed euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and advocated for reform to systemic and racial inequality, recognizing that each individual is made in the image of God.
,
Spirit of the Supreme Court Members
Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, and there have been 104 Associate Justices in the Court’s history.
Roe v. Wade is arguably one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of all time. It established the right to abortion as a matter of privacy and has remained at the forefront of American politics. Supporters of the decision held it up as a beacon for women’s independence and equality. Critics viewed it as an overreach by the Supreme Court. But despite the controversy surrounding it, Roe was the law of the land regarding abortion for more than 50 years. That is until the Supreme Court answered the question many of us have been asking more and more frequently in recent years: Could Roe v. Wade be overturned?
The court overturned Roe vs. Wade by supporting the plaintiff in Dobbs vs. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization. The leaked opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and signed by four other conservative judges.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___, is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held, in June 2022, that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion.
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts voted for abortion restrictions in two major cases: in 2007, to uphold a ban on what opponents call “partial-birth abortion”, and in dissent in 2016, when the court struck down Texas restrictions on abortion clinics.
But when a virtually identical law from Louisiana came before the court in 2020, Roberts voted against it – and wrote the opinion striking it down, insisting the 2016 case “was wrongly decided” but that the question nevertheless was “whether to adhere to it” in deciding the 2020 case.
Roberts’ views on when to break with court precedent could determine how far he is willing to go in the Mississippi case. At his 2005 confirmation hearing, he said overturning precedent “is a jolt to the legal system”, which depends in part on stability and evenhandedness.
Merely thinking that an earlier case was wrongly decided is not enough to overturn it, he said – it requires looking “at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments”.
Clarence Thomas
Thomas has repeatedly called for Roe to be overturned and voted to do so in 1992 when he was a dissenter in Planned Parenthood v Casey. During his 1991 confirmation, he had not formulated a position on the Roe vs. Wade case or had any conversations regarding the issue.
Stephen Breyer
Breyer, who announced his retirement earlier this year and will be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson (whose own record “offers few clues” as to how she’ll lean on abortion cases), led the two Supreme Court majorities in defense of abortion rights, in 2000 and 2016, though he has acknowledged the controversy over abortion.
Millions of Americans believe “that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child”, he has said, while millions of others “fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity”.
Still, Breyer wrote, because the constitution guarantees “fundamental individual liberty”, and because it has to govern even when there are strong divisions in the country, “this court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the constitution offers basic protection to the woman’s right to choose.”
Samuel Alito
Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the leaked draft, has a long track record of opposing abortion rights. He voted to uphold every abortion law the Supreme Court has considered since his 2006 confirmation.
Before, as a federal appeals court judge, he voted to uphold a series of Pennsylvania abortion restrictions, including requiring a woman to notify her spouse before obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down that notification rule in Casey and reaffirmed the abortion right in 1992 by a 5-4 vote.
In 1985, while working for the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that the government should say publicly in a pending abortion case “that we disagree with Roe v Wade”. He also noted he was “particularly proud” of his work arguing “that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion”.
Sonia Sotomayor
Her displeasure with the court’s recent Texas ruling was evident in a virtual appearance she made. “I can’t change Texas’s law, but you can,” she said.
Elena Kagan
Kagan also has repeatedly voted in favor of abortion rights in more than 11 years as a justice. She is also arguably the most consistent voice on the court arguing for the importance of adhering to precedents. She called Texas’s new abortion law “patently unconstitutional” and a “clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey”.
Kagan had already grappled with the issue of abortion before becoming a justice. While working in the Clinton White House she was the co-author of a memo that urged the president for political reasons to support a late-term abortion ban proposed by Republicans in Congress, so long as it contained an exception for the health of the woman.
Ultimately, George W. Bush signed a similar late-term abortion ban without a health exception. The Supreme Court upheld it.
Neil Gorsuch
Gorsuch has perhaps the shortest record on abortion among the nine justices. He was in the majority allowing Texas’s restrictive abortion law to take effect. In a dissent in 2020, he would have upheld Louisiana’s abortion clinic restrictions.
But Gorsuch insisted at his Senate confirmation hearing that he was concerned about procedural issues, not the subject matter. “I do not care if the case is about abortion or widgets or anything else,” he said.
Brett Kavanaugh
Trump named Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court shortly after he sided with the administration in a 2017 case involving abortion.
He later dissented from the Louisiana decision and voted to allow the new Texas law to take effect, though he has taken a less absolutist stance than some of his conservative colleagues.
In the Louisiana case, for example, Kavanaugh wrote that more information was needed about how the state’s restrictions on clinics would affect doctors who provide abortions; and although he voted to allow the Texas law to go into effect, during oral arguments he appeared to have doubts about its novel structure and whether it would lead to a spate of copycat laws, both on abortion and other rights protected by the constitution.
Amy Coney Barrett
Her one public vote on the Supreme Court concerning abortion was to allow the Texas “fetal heartbeat” law to take effect, though she joined Kavanaugh in raising skeptical questions about its structure.
She also cast two votes as an appeals court judge to reconsider rulings that blocked Indiana abortion restrictions.
In 2016, before Trump’s election victory, she spoke about how she thought abortion law might change if Trump had the chance to appoint justices.
“Roe’s core holding that, you know, women have a right to an abortion – I don’t think that would change,” said Barrett, then a Notre Dame law professor. She said limits on what she called “very late-term abortions” and restrictions on abortion clinics would be more likely to be upheld.
Constitution Protection
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether to have an abortion.
Trigger Laws
About half the states will ban abortion almost immediately and half the states will allow abortion to be provided. They’re not going to stop overturning Roe and what they want is a nationwide abortion ban. And so even in states where Roe, the overturn of Roe right now doesn’t mean that abortion will be eliminated, it doesn’t mean that in the long term, it won’t. So if you’re in a state like New York or California and you think that you will have access to abortion even if Roe versus Wade is overturned, that is true in the short term.
But what everyone needs to also understand is that the next long-term plan from the other side and maybe not even that long term; is to ban abortion nationwide. And we can also talk about the other rights that are implicated if the Supreme Court overturns Roe versus Wade, like the right to contraception and LGBTQ rights.
Constitutional laws involving privacy such as gay marriage, interracial marriage, and the use of contraceptives can be deemed unconstitutional by a Judicial court composed of liars, conspiracy theorists, and Q-Anon supporters who side with a minority of voters instead of the majority.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
This organization was founded in 1969, three years before 1973–the groundbreaking decision of Roe vs. Wade, to fight for protective freedoms–legal abortion care, contraception, pregnancy, and postpartum care, paid leave, and protections from pregnancy discrimination. Organizing and building political power is its DNA.
Because the Supreme Court failed to protect the fundamental freedoms of women, NARAL is focused on electing pro-choice candidates for the state and federal offices.
They are fundraising and endorsing:
(WI) The US. Senator – Mandela Barnes (D)
(NC.) The US. Senator – Cheri Beasley (D)
(OH) The US. Senator – Tim Ryan (D)
(AZ) The US. Senator – Mark Kelly (D)
(GA) The US. Senator – Rev. Raphel Warnock
Examples of the need for an abortion due to incest, rape, health issues
A 10-year-old girl had to escape to Indiana to get an abortion.
A 10-year-old raped in Ohio was told by her doctor she could not have her pregnancy terminated because it would break the state’s six-week abortion ban. She had the procedure in Indiana, where it is still legal. But the story has been questioned by conservatives.
Women from Texas suffer ordeal with state abortion law after miscarriage.
When Marlena Stell suffered a miscarriage last year in Texas, she says she begged her doctor for help but instead was forced to go for weeks with fetal remains inside of her because of strict anti-abortion laws. It’s a story that could become more common after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
12-Year-Old Incest Victims Should Birth Dad’s Child
Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn says abortion should be illegal even for a 12-year-old rape victim carrying her father or uncle’s child. “I believe life begins at conception. Every life is valuable. And those are my personal beliefs.” (Child pregnancies carry significantly higher health risks than adult pregnancies.)
Although a Fetus with abnormalities will die. A woman was forced to carry it to term.
A woman in Louisiana said that she has been told that she must carry a fetus without a skull and part of its head to term or travel out of state to receive an abortion.
Nancy Davis, a mother of one, is 13 weeks pregnant. Several weeks ago, an initial ultrasound revealed to Ms. Davis that the fetus would have no chance of surviving — but because Louisiana’s abortion ban does not include an exception for acrania, the condition the fetus is suffering from, she cannot get a legal abortion in the state.
If Ms. Davis does want to get an abortion, she will have to travel out of state to Florida. But time is running out for her to make a decision: Florida has banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, giving Ms Davis a small window to schedule an appointment and arrange her travel should she decide to get the procedure.
“It’s hard knowing that … you know I’m carrying it to bury it…you know what I’m saying,” Ms. Davis told WAFB9.
Banning abortion threatens the laws for banning other freedoms!!!
FUTURE CONCERNS
Due to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, the decision regarding “privacy” between a woman and her doctor no longer exists; thereby, jeopardizing the use of contraception, inter-racial marriage, same-sex marriage, voting rights, and other civil freedoms.
Our Democracy is very fragile because extremists can gain seats in our Government and take away our freedoms.
WHEN A MINORITY OF PEOPLE RULE THE MAJORITY, WE NO LONGER HAVE A DEMOCRACY, WE HAVE APARTHEID.
Maryland
There was a ballot effort in 1992 where Maryland voters codified women’s right to have abortions up to viability. They wanted this in place in case Roe v. Wade was ever overturned.
Reproductive rights are protected under Maryland’s constitution.
