Emma Nakaoka / Opinion / 22 August 2022
With Roe v. Wade overturned, the lives of future women could be transformed against their will.
Nearly 50 years of protected abortion rights came to an end after a pivotal decision taken by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022. At the conclusion of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court case, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — the 1973 case that protected the constitutional right to abortion. This blatant form of gender discrimination results in major consequences for women who may no longer have access to abortion, a human right.
Between 1973 and 2022, women in the U.S. have had the right to access safe and legal abortions until the baby is able to survive out of the womb. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost 630,000 women received legal abortions in clinical settings during 2019 alone.
Without the nationwide guarantee to legal abortions, states are now responsible for deciding whether or not to ban abortions in their territories. About half of the U.S. states have banned or are projected to ban abortions, and the other half have varying levels of restrictions according to gestation stages.
Questioning the validity of Roe v Wade has sparked significant controversy among opposing groups — pro-life and pro-choice. While pro-life refers to a belief supporting abortion bans, pro-choice refers to a belief that women should have the option to get an abortion. Both groups have led large demonstrations and taken to social media as well as journalism to express their views.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade results in a denial of human rights for women who, in certain states, will now be completely stripped of the ability to make an extremely personal choice. The decision has several major consequences, such as endangering health, that enforce more traditional and sexist female roles in which women are obligated to deliver their children no matter the circumstances.
During the case of a miscarriage, the abortion procedure Dilation and Curettage (D and C) can be critical to save a woman’s life at a point where her child will certainly not survive. Without access to this procedure, a woman may die due to complications — presenting an ironic contradiction to supposed “pro-life” views. A recent Newsweek article explains that the term “abortion” is often not associated with such life-saving procedures and is instead limited in use to refer to elective surgeries, though treatment for miscarriage and elective abortion are the same. Denying abortions can also result in women being forced to carry unviable fetuses or even have stillborn births.
According to the CDC, more than 50,000 women experience severe pregnancy complications annually, and 700 women die each year from either pregnancy or delivery complications. A nationwide abortion ban, according to a study by Amanda Jean Stevenson, would correspond to an estimated 21% increase in deaths associated with pregnancy. Limiting life-saving women’s health resources illustrates how the Dobbs v. Jackson decision restricts a fundamental human right and enforces an extreme form of gender discrimination because of a decision taken at the national level.
“A nationwide abortion ban would correspond to an estimated 21% increase in deaths associated with pregnancy."
Even in pro-life states, abortions will likely continue to happen as they have for centuries. Denying women this medical procedure may drive them to seek possibly unsafe clandestine operations — only further endangering a woman’s safety.
Not only are women’s health endangered with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but their life has the possibility to change dramatically in other ways, too.
Changes that women may experience with their bodies, mental health and everyday lives during and after pregnancy should only be the result of a choice made by the woman herself. Women should have the right to control their own bodies and not be forced to leave such decisions in the hands of judicial and political leaders. It is unfair for women to be subject to such restrictions that impede their right to make potentially life-changing choices that could result in more financial difficulties or foregoing education and job opportunities.
A clear example of the oppressive effects of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision is seen in the connection between denied abortion and extended toxic relationships. According to a 2014 study by the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health team, women who were denied an abortion were more likely to stay in abusive relationships for an additional two years compared to women who were able to receive treatment. These women were also more likely to sustain contact with the man involved in the pregnancy. This could mean more women and children in abusive households, which could lead to trauma and mental health issues.
Denying women abortions not only affects their well-being, but also the future children born under these circumstances. An abortion ban may result in more children growing up without necessary financial resources, or in foster homes that are often unable to maintain the stability a child needs. It may cause more children to face the emotional weight of growing up with a mother who is not ready or does not want to have children.
The Supreme Court needs to understand the full weight of its decision and the major multifaceted implications it has for women and children across the country. Girls growing up today will have less rights than their mothers and grandmothers, resulting in a step back in the fight for women's rights. The complexity and the controversy surrounding the topic may make it difficult to discuss — yet, it is crucial to address the effects of such an impactful decision in order to reestablish protection around this human right.
Comments