The landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade solidified a woman's right to get an abortion by the Constitution of the United States in 1973. Nearly fifty years later, in the year 2022, that essential right that has protected women's bodily autonomy (the right to make personal medical decisions without government interference) has been overturned all across America. As a result, a woman’s access to safe and legal abortion now depends largely on where she lives, which is creating a deeply unequal and unstable healthcare landscape. This constant back and forth to the right to have a legal and safe abortion raises a necessary question: why has this essential human right that courts have affirmed in the past remained so unstable throughout time? Restricting abortion access infringes on the fundamental human right to reproductive autonomy. Banning abortion undermines women's ability to achieve gender equality, poses significant health risks, mostly for marginalized groups, and restrains women's ability to make choices that permanently impact their lives.
Restricting access to abortion has significantly set back women’s progress toward gender equality in the United States. Gender inequality is the unequal treatment and opportunities females face in places such as education, work place, health care, and even politics. (Ryer 2023 3). The article Abortion Rights Are Threatened focuses on providing information about women's sexual and reproductive health. When the author mentions that over the past couple decades, abortion policy has changed dramatically at a state level, they point out, “In 2000, the country was almost evenly divided, with nearly a third of American women of reproductive age living in states solidly hostile to abortion rights, slightly more than a third in states supportive of abortion rights and close to a third in middle-ground states. By 2011, however, more than half of women of reproductive age lived in hostile states.” (Nash and Gold 2013 p1). This clear shift from neutral abortion policies in almost half of the states in the US to more restrictive laws in one-third of the states limits a woman's ability to achieve reproductive autonomy on her own. This affects all women's ability to make life-changing choices about their own futures.
Limiting reproductive freedom directly affects gender equality by restricting women's ability to make decisions about their own bodies without interruptions from the government about their own healthcare choices. In the same article, when the authors explain how, ever since Roe v. Wade was implemented, states have “sought to put roadblocks directly in the path of women seeking an abortion by, for example, mandating that women receive biased counseling or imposing parental involvement requirements for minors. Other states have tried to make it harder for women to pay for the procedure by restricting public or private insurance coverage.” (Nash and Gold 2013 p2). The measures these states have taken disproportionately affect females and limit their access to necessary health care. It clearly reinforces systemic barriers that prevent them from having equal control over their bodies, lives, and futures. These targeted restrictions not only bargain with women's health and autonomy, but they also deepen gender inequalities by denying them full freedom to make choices about their bodies.
Restricting access to abortion has posed health risks for women, especially for those in marginalized groups. There are many different ways abortion restrictions can look, from state-wide bans, long waiting periods, not taking certain forms of insurance, and more. The article Abortion: AMA sues over North Dakota law, saying it forces physicians to lie, written by Owen Dryer highlights how doctors give patients false information based on a particular political agenda rather than factual scientific evidence. The specific law this is referring to is the North Dakota law that requires doctors to tell patients that medication abortions can be reversed, which is not backed by scientific evidence. As the author was introducing how the “patient-physician relationship” should honestly inform patients about all their options for healthcare, the president of the American Medical Association Patrice Harris asserted “North Dakota’s law undermines this relationship by requiring physicians to mislead and misinform their patients with messages that contradict reality and science.” (Dryer 2019, p6). This misinformation can cause a delay or even prevent patients from accessing safe abortion. Laws like this not only misrepresent science, but they also use it to serve political interests, which is creating an unsafe healthcare system. The AMA’s lawsuits are an example of how medical professionals are starting to not use science and evidence-based care, making female patients vulnerable.
Beyond the general struggles women face, abortion restrictions disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Low-income women do not receive equal access to abortion care, and this can put them at a higher risk for negative health outcomes. In the article Abortion Stigma Among Low-Income Women Obtaining Abortions in Western Pennsylvania: A Qualitative Assessment the authors outline how barriers in the system, along with abortion stigma, contribute to unequal access to healthcare for women in marginalized groups, particularly in poverty. When the author discusses how there is not much research on subpopulations who experience abortion stigmas, they mention how our attention must be brought to low-income women in the United States, “Low-income women are more likely than those who are economically better off to encounter difficulties in accessing timely and safe abortion services, and appear to often rely on social support to mitigate barriers to abortion access.” (Gelman, Rosenfeld 2016 p7). This emphasizes how low-income women, a marginalized group, are affected unequally by certain barriers. While the article does not list specific barriers, it implies that low-income women may need support for costs, transportation, or access to nearby clinics, which can delay or prevent a safe abortion from taking place. Unlike privileged women who have access to more efficient resources, we must also consider low-income women when implementing strict abortion laws throughout states.
Restricting access to getting an abortion has hindered a woman's ability to make her own choices that can impact her for the rest of her life. The article Induced Abortion discusses a global shift toward more liberalized abortion laws, however, there are still inequalities that remain. According to a 2014 United Nations report mentioned in the article, “Only a minority of developing countries permit access to abortion on request (16%) or for socio-economic reasons (20%), while a vast majority of developed countries grant access for both indications (71 and 82%, respectively)” (Glasier 2017 p9). These statistics highlight how millions of women, especially in developing countries, are denied the basic right to make decisions about their own bodies. When the right to get an abortion is restricted, women can lose control over their own futures whether it is continuing education, maintaining a job, or embracing the physical and emotional results of an unwanted pregnancy. It is important to mention that restricting access to abortion does not necessarily stop a woman from seeking a procedure, it just makes it more dangerous. In the same article, it was stated that abortion rates are nearly the same in countries where it is heavily restricted and where they are legally available. Legal status does not affect how often abortions happen, but it does affect how safe the abortion is. The 2014 United Nations report also brings up, “In 2011, rates of unsafe abortion were four times higher in countries with restrictive policies as compared to countries with liberal policies (26.7/1000 women versus 6.1/1000 women).” (Glasier 2017 p8). This means that in places where abortion is illegal or harder to access, women are more likely to undergo unsafe procedures and risk their health. Legalizing abortion protects a woman's right to choose and ensures that the procedure can be done safely.
The criminalization of abortion, even in cases such as rape, directly goes against international human rights standards and denies women the freedom to make life changing decisions about thier bodies. International human rights standards are the rights established by global treaties that guarantee fundamental rights to everyone. As outlined in the article Abortion as a Human Right—International and Regional Standards, these standards are used to determine whether abortion laws respect or violate womens rights especially in cases where safe abortion is denied in circumstances like rape or risk to life. The Human Rights Committee (HRC) has explicitly “expressed concern regarding the criminalisation of abortion, even when the pregnancy is the result of rape, and confirmed that such legislation is incompatible with women's right to life under Article 6.” (Zampas and Gher 2008 p14). When abortion is automatically criminalized in cases like rape, it violates womens autonomy and endagers thier health and well-being. Research indicates that "there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety, and thus women living in countries with restrictive abortion laws often resort to unsafe, clandestine abortions, jeopardising their lives and health." (Zampas and Gher 2008 p1). Notably, this restrictive legislation ignores the trauma experienced by sexual violence survivors, as well as forcing them to carry a pregnancy that is likely to cause mental harm. Zampas and Gher also mention that governments across the globe are failing to uphold their obligations under international law to protect women's health rights. It is clear there is a pattern where the government is trying to control women's bodies, reproductive decisions should not be in the hands of the government but the women themselves
Even if there are international human rights arguments that mostly support abortion access, pro-life advocates often talk about individual experience to show the emotional and moral weight of having an abortion at some point in their lives. In the article Abortion Stigma Among Low-Income Women Obtaining Abortions in Western Pennsylvania: A Qualitative Assessment, there are numerous interviews done on women who have had an abortion. Many talk about regret and emphasize the guilt that lingers with them. Religious beliefs shape many people's perspective on whether abortion is moral in their lives. “A 33-year-old participant shared how her religious beliefs shape her perspective of her recent abortion as shameful: “Because I have a very strong faith in God, I am ashamed. … And that's something that I have to deal with forever. That's my biggest fear and regret.” (Gelman 2016 p33). This perspective underscores how religious values can influence a person's emotional response to abortion. This woman's sense of shame and lasting regret stems from the morals she has been taught to live by. This raises an important issue: people are entitled to believe in whatever faith they want to believe in, and laws should be separated from state laws and not based on religious principles. Separating church and state ensures that policies incorporate universal human rights. “…A 38-year-old who had had an abortion reported, “I was [against abortion] myself until I ended up having to have one.” (Gelman 2016 p22). These perspectives show how views on abortion are shaped by personal circumstances. The need for abortion policies should be grounded in medical realities, not personal or religious beliefs.
The morality of abortion is always going to be an ongoing debate. The stakes are our human rights, it should not be a political or religious issue. Across the world, and within the United States, restrictive abortion legislation has been harmful to women's health and bodily autonomy, especially for those in marginalized groups. Though there are individual stories of regret from people who have gone through the abortion process, our public policy should prioritize reality. Legalizing Abortion is a necessary part of women's healthcare, and access is a human right.
References
Dyer, O. (2019). Abortion: AMA sues over North Dakota law, saying it forces physicians to lie. BMJ, 366, l4576–l4576. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4576
Gold, R. B., & Nash, E. (2013). Abortion Rights Are Threatened. In T. L. Roleff (Ed.), At Issue. Are Abortion Rights Threatened? Greenhaven Press. 2012, Winter, 15[1]) https://link-gale-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010869203/OVIC?u=asuniv&sid=summon&xid=44b4b6fc
Gelman, A., Rosenfeld, E. A., Nikolajski, C., Freedman, L. R., Steinberg, J. R., & Borrero, S. (2017). Abortion Stigma Among Low-Income Women Obtaining Abortions in Western Pennsylvania: A Qualitative Assessment. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12014
Zampas, C., & Gher, J. M. (2008). Abortion as a Human Right-International and Regional-=\[]p-Standards. Human Rights Law Review, 8(2), 249–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngn008