START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
927,880 people care about Women's Rights

What if a Woman Had Been on the Bench Deciding Roe?

What if a Woman Had Been on the Bench Deciding Roe?

It has been forty years since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. Although the ruling was meant to make abortion legal in all 50 states, a number of subsequent court decisions have chipped away at the legal right to an abortion leaving it in many ways accessible and legal in name only, depending upon a number of factors such as what state a person lives in or how much money she has.

Current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg hasn’t been one to pull punches when it comes to discussing the legal dismantling of the of the protections surrounding the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy, nor what she considers to have been the 1973 court’s mishandling of the decision itself. Now, in a recent interview with a talk show called “The Takeaway,” the justice takes on another interesting hypothetical: what if there had been a woman on the court that decided the nation’s original abortion case?

From the transcript of the show:

John Hockenberry: You’ve delivered very famous critiques of the Roe v. Wade decision. In a slightly narrower question, I wonder if you feel that a woman on that Court would have resisted making a decision so clinical in the way that it described first trimester, second trimester, third trimester, that sort of thing.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: There was a later case called Casey in which Justice O’Connor did participate in this kind of very different tone. It centered on the woman, not on the doctor-patient relationship, and it isn’t divided into trimesters. So I think looking back from that decision we can say yes, if Justice O’Connor had been on that Court maybe she would have influenced the way the decision was explained.

It’s interesting that Ginsburg notes that the case in which a woman did participate, the resulting decision surrounded the right of the woman terminating the pregnancy more so that the decision made in Roe, which in essence was about making it legal for a medical professional to perform an abortion on a patient rather than a direct statement that the pregnant person has the right to terminate.

If Roe had originally been focused more on the right of the woman than the legality of the procedure itself, we would be looking at a very different landscape when it comes to the type of abortion restrictions being proposed and passed in state legislatures. By creating the idea of abortion as dangerous or harmful to women, anti-choice lawmakers have been able to dramatically reduce access by mandating waiting periods and ultrasounds, or by eliminating access to early termination via telemed bans or bans on off-label drug use, despite both being medical best practices for abortion.

More disturbing, however, is the loophole that has been left open by making abortion only legal when done by a doctor, criminalizing any pregnant person who endeavors to find her own means to terminate a pregnancy when she is unable to access a legal abortion. Despite the legality of the act of abortion, we are increasingly seeing women who have been charged for ending a pregnancy on her own, out of suspicion of ending a pregnancy on her own, or even worse, just for not giving birth to a live child and seeking out medical help afterwards.

Even the current court precedent doesn’t leave much to feel positive about. When Jennie Linn McCormack, an Idaho woman accused of “unlawful abortion,” fought a charge meant to be used on non-medical professionals who terminate a pregnancy, the courts ruled that a pregnant person couldn’t be charged for inducing her own abortion. It was not because she has a right to an abortion, however,  as much as that it would put “an undue burden on women seeking abortions by requiring them to police their provider’s compliance with Idaho’s regulations.”

In other words, it’s still about the relationship between the doctor and patient, not the right of the woman to decide whether or not she wants to give birth.

That so much of Roe revolves around the abortion provider’s right to terminate a pregnancy without fearing legal recourse becomes that much more dangerous as we see access to medications that could cause an abortion greatly increasing, and access to real medical professionals who can safely and legally provide the same dwindling rapidly. If the pace of both continue, there will be a many more instances for those who support reproductive rights to mourn for a woman-centric Roe we never got to see in reality.

Read more: , , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

73 comments

+ add your own
3:24AM PDT on Sep 24, 2013

The answer is inevitable.

1:57AM PDT on Sep 24, 2013

Mark K., birth control methods sometimes fail. The failure generally does not become evident until well after the three days following intercourse.

Also, the morning after pill cost of $9 may be trivial to you, but it's a lot of money to someone who is barely scraping by, which is half of the United States population. Also, I believe that there are still some age restrictions on its purchase without a prescription.

7:58PM PDT on Sep 23, 2013

If women had been partners of men for centuries as we always should have been, we would not be in this place now.

11:27PM PDT on Sep 21, 2013

Great comments - thank you!

8:13AM PDT on Sep 20, 2013

The constant attack on roe v wade is truly wrong.

4:47AM PDT on Sep 20, 2013

Since abortion is a medical procedure there's nothing odd about the requirement that it be performed by a doctor.

12:42AM PDT on Sep 20, 2013

Thank you for the article.

6:29PM PDT on Sep 19, 2013

I am sorry but with all the advances in birth control and now the "morning after pill" could someone tell me why...other than medical necessity... an abortion is even on the table ?

Any person that can talk can legally buy this "backup" that guarantees there will be no pregnancy to terminate. This pill is now on sale at every WalMart in the country for 9 dollars.

Other than absolute stupidity or extreme insanity any woman and or partner would bring one of these to the party and you have three days to take it.

This argument on abortion is over...

4:48PM PDT on Sep 19, 2013

YEAH,, WHAT IF...??

4:46PM PDT on Sep 19, 2013

The religious lunatic fringe wants to inflict a Sharia type law on American women, and control every aspect of our lives. If they had their way, we would probably go back to the days of the Salem witch trials and burning women at the stake if they don't behave.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.