A Moderate Take on SCOTUS's Groundbreaking Decision

6/25/22

Yesterday America was shocked by the Supreme Court’s decision.

I am shocked and appalled but for different reasons. I am pro-life and pro-choice. I am pro-protecting all life, including a potential mother’s life and her fetus’s life. Simultaneously, I am pro-bodily autonomy, allowing a female to evaluate her options and have an abortion under certain circumstances. I am for institutions that are devoted to family planning, supporting women’s reproductive health, and researching safe abortion techniques. I am also for the sanctity of life. All of these ideas are not mutually exclusive, and what the country does now must acknowledge that. 

I know that this article is long, and I hope that my readers will read it with an open mind. Quite understandably, emotions are high, so I hope my pragmatic approach does not come across as insensitive. 

First, let’s walk through what happened yesterday. Why was the Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs. Wade so many years later? 

It started with Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the Mississippi law that bans abortions over 15 weeks gestational age with exceptions. These exceptions include a fetal abnormality or a medical emergency. The State appealed this law in light of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling it unconstitutional. Essentially, when appealing this, the State asked the Supreme Court to overturn a long-standing precedent: Roe vs. Wade. 

Historical protections for abortion came with limitations. For example, in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, this “established the constitutional right to abortion before the pregnancy is considered to be viable.” This ruling allowed for states to restrict second and third-trimester abortions.  Nearly 20 years later, with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court affirmed Roe vs. Wade, but also allowed for the State of Pennsylvania to keep restrictions on abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period. This was ruled to not be an “undue burden,” meaning it was considered to be constitutional. 

Why do I have some issues with being fully pro-choice?

Being pro-choice must also mean caring about the fetus’ life because otherwise, this lends itself to dangerous circumstances: 

What pro-choice looks like without any regard for life are murderers such as Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell performed late-term abortions (post-24 weeks) that essentially resulted in the murdering of babies, whose spinal cords he would snap outside of the womb. A former employee recalled the “screaming” of a baby as Gosnell stripped its life away. 

What pro-choice looks like at its worse is not supporting the Born-Alive Babies. These are babies who, after a failed abortion, could survive with proper medical treatment. A baby–born alive after an abortion–still deserves its rights to life, and to deny a living being its constitutional rights should be a heinous crime. H.R. 619–the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act–hopes to protect children who are born alive “following an abortion or attempted abortion.” This would provide a law that gives these infant beings–with heartbeats and pain receptors–the dignity of life that they deserve. 

A completely pro-choice society looks like Colorado, a state with sickening abortion laws where a late abortion can be obtained. Colorado’s disgusting Reproductive Health Equity Act allows for abortion under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES up until birth. Specifically, this bill states that a “fetus does not have any independent or derivative rights under the laws of the state.” This dehumanizes the fetus’ life completely. It is repulsive, and a late-term abortion like this is arguably considered murder. 

(Stick with me here, if you’re pro-choice, please. Keep reading. I promise I am going to offer major criticism of the other side, too.)

Many would be surprised to hear that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a fan of Roe vs. Wade. She wished it would have been supported as “equal protection” instead of “privacy.” 

She did, however, support a woman’s right to abortion under this framework: “the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity…. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

This statement makes sense, but it disregards the fetus’ life. When a woman makes this decision, she is depriving a child of life. She is, in essence, taking away a life.

I hope this does not make it sound like I am excited to hear that abortion is in jeopardy, and states with trigger bans can institute archaic abortion laws that put life in danger. I understand the concerns of women across the country, who fear that they will not be able to receive an abortion under any circumstances and who fear that they are now second-class citizens, subject to the whims of older men… older men who could not imagine what it is like to have an unplanned pregnancy, fear for how you will afford it, fear for how you are going to tell your family. etc. 

This is why abortion legislation should not look like an outright ban. Unborn babies experience pain at 20 weeks gestational age. Similarly, an embryo “can move its back and neck” and has a heartbeat around 6 to 7 weeks. Doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath with primum non nocere or “do no harm” should, thus, not perform an abortion that would cause harm. This is why I do not support abortions past 6 weeks (there are exceptions, of course). At this point, the fetus is a life– its heart is beating. The child is moving, feeling. 

Under this framework though, there should be exceptions. In the case that a woman’s life is endangered, she should be guaranteed an abortion. With a medical emergency or fetal abnormality, a woman should be allowed to receive an abortion. Past 6 weeks in the pregnancy, abortions should be restricted. 

In no case should we normalize abortion. Abortion should never be the first solution, and it is not usually the first idea for most women. We need to make sure women of child-bearing age have the access they need, and before that, schools have comprehensive sex education. 

If this was to be the law (no abortions permitted after a heartbeat, with exceptions), then these women should receive ample care. We should fund family planning agencies and ensure that women have adequate access to contraceptives. We should ensure that adoption agencies have substantive funding. We should ensure that women have societal support systems while they are undergoing pregnancy, and if they do not wish to keep the baby after its birth, they can be assured that the child can live a full life. 

Otherwise, we cannot infringe on a woman who is unprepared to bring a baby into the world. Without ensuring that community systems are built up, a woman is going to bring a baby into the world who she does not want and set this baby up for a trauma-filled upbringing, marked by shame and lack of belonging. 

This is not to say that the pro-lifers are correct at all. They are just as flawed and hypocritical. 

Pro-lifers, at their worst, disregard nuance. For example, states that have already (or plan on) instituting outright abortion bans from the get-go unless a woman’s life is endangered or she was raped seem to lack any understanding of what this experience is like for a woman. These trigger bans and complete bans have harmful repercussions and result in unsafe abortions not safer societies.

To pro-life legislators who were excited to hear yesterday’s decision, and to the SCOTUS judges who ruled that abortion is not constitutionally-founded, I expect to see waves of support for life. By this, I mean, that in order to avoid abortions, I want to see better accessibility to contraception, more family planning available in communities with high birth rates or high abortion rates, and care and compassion for these women who are undergoing one of the hardest decisions of their lives. No woman is excited to get an abortion. Politicians must think about that when drafting and enacting legislation. 

And to Clarence Thomas, whose conservatism seems to disregard anybody who is not a straight male, I must express my extreme disappointment. Thomas released a statement yesterday that he would be willing to consider overturning other long-standing precedents. This is incredibly disconcerting.

And to those who are angry to hear that concealed firearms are protected but abortions are not, you have the ambiguous 2nd Amendment to thank. But, I believe we as citizens must urge politicians across the aisle to support gun control. Any politician who is pro-life, in light of this “victory for life,” should be pushing strongly for gun control. Not taking the 2nd Amendment away from law-abiding citizens, but sensible gun control. It is a disgrace to the office–and to all constituents a Congress member has–to not support the current bipartisan gun legislation,  and I sincerely applaud the 14 Republicans who stepped up and acknowledged that people come before the party. As this legislation is signed by President Biden, it presents an opportunity for politicians to consider ways that life can be supported in other facets of life. Pro-life means trying to find bipartisan ways to improve the human condition across the country. 

Nobody should be fully rejoicing in this reversal of Roe vs. Wade, because life is still precarious. Let’s protect life, but let’s also support women.