Roe v. Wade was a historic decision made precedent by the US Supreme Court which ruled that the US Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancy without “excessive government intervention”. The court determined that access to abortion should be largely protected during the first trimester and abortion during the second trimester may be restricted based on state laws and/or medical recommendations. Now with the appointment of Amy Conny Barrett taking over Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Supreme Court seat. The Supreme Court is officially stacked as a conservative supermajority, with 6 of the 9 judges being appointed by Republican presidents. The 6 have also openly been more so on the socially conservative side of policy. With abortion and gay marriage being the top issues at play. Due to this supermajority, the 3 progressive judges will essentially be at the mercy of the other 6 conservative judges when it comes to ruling on cases, setting precedents, and rolling back on precedents. As a result, the precedent of abortion access that Roe v. Wade had made in 1973 is now at great risk.
Texas has officially barred abortions after six weeks and Mississippi is looking to ban abortions after 15 weeks even in cases of incest and rape. In addition, other conservative/Republican states including Alabama and West Virginia have already voiced their desires to restrict abortion, taking the example from Texas. Unfortunately, in a country as economically and socially rich as the US, the US has been and will continue to be plagued with outgoing social conservatives both at the legislative level and at the level of the public. These groups of people will continue to exist and will likely continue to push for socially conservative policies. Some advocates have even voiced concern about the new Supreme Court potentially rolling back on the historic 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges which effectively made same-sex marriage to be legal across the US (although other advocates in the LGBTQ community say this is unlikely).
When looking at the world, abortion access is very limited; a report by the United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs analyzed global abortions laws and concluded that only 34% of countries allow for abortion upon the woman’s request. Much of this access is focused in the developed world including Canada, Europe, and the Oceanic regions. With that metric, global universal abortion access upon request is a reality that is still ways away. However, when talking about abortion in the cases of potential death to the mother, then abortion access covers around 98% of the world. But it is my firm belief that abortion access should not be limited to the potential death of a woman, the standard of abortion access should simply be that ‘if a woman requests an abortion, she ought to be entitled to receive one’.
Even in countries where abortion is a fundamental right that is protected by legislation and restricted abortion legislation may be considered unconstitutional. There are members within parliaments (Canada’s CPC, Australia’s coalition, Germany’s alternative party, US Republicans) who would support restricting abortion if they were to come into power. Thus, the risk of losing abortion access persists even in the well—developed countries. However, it is worth noting that the majority of parliamentarians in the countries support access to abortion and any restrictions by a conservative party would likely come with mass backlash from the public and the opposition parties at play.
Abortion access is also important for economic reasons, IWPR reports the highlights of what abortion access does for women economically. For Black women, abortion access decreases teen fertility resulting in Black women graduating from high school at higher rates and increasing college attendance. In addition, abortion access reduces the number of women in poverty and also reduces the number of children born into poorer conditions. The biggest IWPR highlights are that abortion access increases women’s participation in the workforce overall. The increase of participation was seen for all demographics of women; 6.9% increase for Black women and 2% among all women. As a result of more women working, we can expect an increase in tax revenue through more income taxes (which can then be invested in social services), more potential workers for businesses to hire, more buying power for the overall population, a more educated population, and a more productive economy as a whole (higher total GDP and higher GDP per capita).
Philosophically speaking, individuals should be able to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy at any point of pregnancy if they so wish (assuming a doctor validates the decision). Since only women can get pregnant, they are the only group that can then seek an abortion. From this logic, only those who have the ability to terminate their own pregnancies should receive the privilege to terminate the pregnancy if it is in accordance with their wishes. No other individual outside of a pregnant woman and a doctor should have a say in the matter of a woman’s pregnancy. No man, and certainly no dire husband has a veto in the termination or continuation of a woman’s pregnancy.
If you’re still not convinced, a group of 150 economists have recently filed a brief against a course case in Mississippi that looks to overturn Roe v. Wade. The brief argues that access to abortion has had a “significant impact on women’s wages and educational attainment, with impacts most strongly felt by black women” (Financial Times). The brief also states there is “Ample evidence [that] indicates that Roe is causally connected to women’s advancements in social and economic life” and if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then “it would have a significant and negative impact on women’s lives” (FT). Thus, the argument for abortion access is not just for the choice of individuals to be able to make but it also makes sense from an economic point of view as abortion access makes women and the economy better off financially.
Unfortunately, an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute has indicated that US states overall have actually increased their hostility towards passing restrictive abortion policy. The analysis shows that hostility towards abortion has increased significantly in more conservative states and has spread to states like Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, and Florida. With the next mid-term election likely going to be swinging towards Republican gains in Congress (based on current polls and analyst opinions), combined with Biden’s approval rating being abysmal and Trump running again in 2024. Abortion access for women is going to get a lot worse before it gets better in the US. The country’s future with abortion is going to be a grim one, unfortunately.