Women in America were having abortions long before the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed (January 22nd 1973) that access to safe and legal abortion is a woman’s constitutional right (Roe v. Wade).
Prior to this a lot of women died trying to self-induce or seek abortion services from lay people. Some abortion access barriers continue to exist in the forms of various laws and provisions such as the Hyde Amendment which bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman. As if these barriers are not enough, Missouri’s proposed abortion ban is a direct attack on a woman’s constitutional right to make such a personal and complex decision. The country seems to be heading back to those dark times when poor women had to seek abortions in back alleys. When I heard of the proposed abortion ban it brought to mind a Netflix movie I watched recently that brilliantly depicted some personal and complex conflicts a woman experiences when confronted with this choice.
In the movie “Her Only Choice,” a pregnant couple who had been told that they would never get pregnant found out that not only were they pregnant but that the mother also had stage IV breast cancer. They were advised that the mother would need to start chemotherapy immediately to save her life however, because the chemo medications were dangerous to a growing fetus the pregnancy would have to be terminated immediately. In consultation with her OB/GYN, Oncologist, husband and very close family, the woman decided that her choice wasn’t her life or her baby’s life – she was ready to fight for both. The rest of the movie portrayed the following: her struggles to find an oncologist who would provide and monitor her cancer treatment while working with her OB; the strain between her and her husband who thought she was crazy for not aborting the fetus to save her own life; the support from her father who lost his wife (her mother) to the same aggressive breast cancer that was ravaging his daughter; and the dynamics of a breast cancer support group that had women dealing with the disease in various stages of diagnosis and treatment. At the end the woman was the only person to decide how she wanted her pregnancy to unfold while dealing with the support and criticism from her inner circle. It was a very powerful and emotionally charged movie.
The primary goal of the thoughtless and senseless abortion bans in Missouri and some Southern states is to challenge the ruling in Roe v. Wade so it can be overturned. This will give states the right to do whatever they feel like when it pertains to abortion because it will no longer be a woman’s constitutional right. How scary! If Roe v. Wade is successfully overturned 4.3 million Hispanic or Latino women, 3.5 million Black or African American women, 800,000 thousand Asian women and nearly 300,000 American Indian or Alaska Native women will be at risk of losing access to abortion (Planned Parenthood). If an abortion ban is implemented it will disproportionately impact women in marginalized groups; women of color, women with low level of education and poor women. While the authors of this legislation may claim that their intent is not to unfairly target any specific group of women, the American system by its mere design will do exactly that. Women of means will seek abortion services wherever they’re available; they will fly from Alabama to New York if the situation demands. Poor women will seek back door abortions and we’ll revert to the era before Roe v. Wade when women died in droves.
Is it okay for States to dictate what happens to women’s bodies, especially in light of their reproductive health? I’m stating a categorical “no!” Abortion or women’s reproductive health should not become a political football; it cannot be viewed through the rigid binary lens of pro-life or pro-choice. It’s a lot more nuanced and multiple variables are at play when a woman is faced with the choice of abortion. Variables may include but not limited to religious beliefs, mode of conception (rape, incest etc.), viability of fetus, severe fetal anomaly, health of woman, socioeconomic status, mental and emotional health and a range of other variables. While it’s in order to have some general guidelines and resources to help women and their providers make optimal decisions, women should be the final arbiters when it pertains to decisions about their bodies.
The abortion ban and the way it’s been implemented in some southern states is preposterous, offensive, racist, sexist and downright abusive. It’s no surprise that the legislators criminalizing abortion happen to be Caucasian men; the ban is an outgrowth of a patriarchal system that’s simply scared of losing its stronghold and long held authority. Unless they have walked in the shoes of women who have experienced rapes, incest, hardships, domestic violence and carrying babies who are malformed, they’re not morally qualified or equipped to make such sweeping mandates. In Missouri, as of the week of June 1st 2019, the state has mandated doctors at the only operating abortion clinic to perform a medically unnecessary pelvic exam on any woman seeking an abortion; after which the woman must wait 72 hours before the procedure is actually performed.
What exactly is the value of this process other than punitive? Even medical providers are decrying this as an extra and medically unnecessary exam that’s subjecting women to invasive vaginal probing. I agree with the critics who have dubbed this policy a “state sanctioned sexual assault.” This is dehumanizing and it’s a war on women, period! Since as a society we cannot eliminate all situations where women will be confronted with this unpleasant and emotional laden choice, rather than punishing women and their providers why not leverage efforts into ensuring that a plethora of resources are available and accessible to all women who are faced with this choice.
Resources such as counseling, clergy and peer support might help women who are pregnant and dealing with issues of fetal viability, severe fetal anomaly or endangerment of their health; resources such as open and closed adoption, temporary placement, counseling, clergy and peer support might help women whose pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest, or who cannot afford to have another child because of financial hardship. This approach will ensure that marginalized groups of women have access to resources that could influence their decisions especially if they see viable options. Additionally, educating child bearing women about taking control of their bodies and utilizing inter-conception methods such as birth control (if not religiously contraindicated) or even abstinence to prevent unwanted pregnancies might be of value. In all of these scenarios the final decision should rest with the woman and whomever the woman thinks is pertinent to the decision making process (medical provider, significant other, spiritual leader etc.).
De-stigmatizing abortion and having an open and honest conversation about what women experience when they’re faced with such decisions might help to sensitize and educate the rest of the public including the exclusive Caucasian male legislators in Alabama, Missouri and elsewhere. There are currently several states passing laws to expand access to abortion and one such state is New York with the New York Reproductive Health Act – which ensures that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, abortion will remain a legal and safe health procedure in New York. Other states like New Mexico, Illinois and Rhode Island have introduced similar laws in an effort to decriminalize abortion regardless of what happens in the U.S. Supreme Court. Even with all this, if proactive steps are not taken to level the playing field overturning Roe v. Wade will hurt a lot of already marginalized women in this society. Please use your vote wisely in 2020!