On May 2, Politico leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that would overturn the 1973 Supreme court decision Roe v. Wade. This landmark decision struck down a Texas abortion ban as unconstitutional and confirmed that women in the United States had the fundamental right to choose whether to have an abortion without governmental restriction.
This decision would spark fear and angst amongst women across America, according to experts who continually advise against the Court’s draft opinion because of the medical concerns that would arise from abortion bans. There is also an unsettled atmosphere amongst younger generations of college students who are using their voices to speak out against the decision across campus in attempt to protect their peers.
According to a Washington Post article that was released on the day of the leak, the decision of Roe v. Wade was also made public before the court announced it. The article stated that a Supreme Court clerk leaked the result to a Time Magazine reporter who released a story hours before Justice Harry Blackmun announced the court’s decision.
“The Supreme Court has always jealously guarded its opinions, and secrecy is critical to maintaining an even handed approach to dispensing justice,” states the article, confirming that a leak, like this one, is rare.
If the case is overturned, decisions on the legality of abortions will be left up to the states. Many have announced their commitment to keeping the procedure legal while over a dozen others will enact a total ban once the case is overturned.
“I would guess there will also be efforts at the national level to restrict abortion,” said Dr. Sara Chatfield, a political science professor at the University of Denver who earned both her masters degree and PHD in political science from the University of California Berkeley. “I don’t think it’s quite clear yet how successful those might be, but I think there will be efforts to take national action on restrictions as well.”
When Roe v. Wade was initially decided upon, the plaintiffs argument referenced an American’s right to privacy. This meant that an individual could make the decision to have an abortion without the interference of others, including the government.
According to an article from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Ruth Bater Ginsburg, the late liberal Supreme Court Justice known for continually fighting for women’s reproductive rights, disagreed with the legal reasoning as to why abortion remained accessible.
The article states that RBG wished Struck v. Secretary of Defense was the case that determined the legality of abortion, as the decision would have been based on the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment rather the right to privacy.
“According to Ginsburg, basing reproductive freedom on a privacy argument makes it physician-centered, not woman-centered, transforming the issue into being about a doctor’s freedom to practice,” stated the article.
Moral, social, and emotional reasonings all interfere with a woman’s decision to get an abortion, but safety concerns are repeatedly forgotten when politicians debate the legality of the procedure, according to Chatfield.
Chatfield addressed the issue of ectopic pregnancies which occur in the fallopian tubes and are 100% fatal for both the mother and the child. If abortion was overturned, women who undergo these types of pregnancies would be unable to save themselves or bare a child.
“I think that’s one area where I would say there’s just a basic lack of factual understanding about some of these things,” said Chatfield. “I think it’s really problematic to have lawmakers who are legislating on these topics that don’t really seem to understand the medical reality behind them.”
If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, women who desire the procedure would be forced to travel great distances to neighboring states that allow them to receive the medical care, or they would have to consider other measures.
“Just because abortion becomes illegal doesnt mean they’re going to stop,” said University of Denver student Nina Stoops, “Its just going to become significantly more dangerous and inaccesible.”
Stoops also expressed concern over the additional late term abortions she believes will occur since women would not have access to medical assistance as quickly and affectively as they do now.
According to the study ‘State Abortion Policies and Maternal Death in the United States’, conducted between 2015 and 2018, which compared state abortion policies and maternal deaths, total maternal mortality, maternal mortality, and late maternal mortality rates were all higher in states with the largest number of abortion restrictions.
“Our findings suggest the cumulative impact of abortion restrictions on maternal death, adding to a limited body of empirical studies linking rising maternal mortality and reduced access to reproductive health services in the United States,” stated the discussion of the study, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Even with statistics proving an greater number of maternal death in states with abortion restrictioins, pro-life individuals feel the social wrongdoings of abortion out number the physical concerns. For years, one of the most common anti-abortion arguments has been based on the principles of religion, as individuals argue that the bible speaks out against abortion.
“By outlining what ought to be and by creating and reinforcing group norms through interaction, religion has a substantial influence on persons’ worldviews”, argues Michael Emerson, author of ‘Through Tinted Glasses: Religion, Worldviews, and Abortion Attitudes’.
In his article, Emerson makes a distinction between individually created and socially created views on abortion. He states that individually created views are when someone has a personal reason to feel one way, while socially created views are done so through frame alignment, the process in which one’s socialization impacts them, hence why religion would impact an individuals opinion on abortion.
The findings of Emerson’s study conclude that in the United States, attitudes towards abortion are shaped by worldviews, and the worldviews are influenced by religion and social location.
“Beyond showing that religion’s impact is mediated by worldviews, these findings suggest that in direct-effect models, religions influence is underestimated,” states the article.
While many individuals choose to support the pro-life movement because of moral obligations influenced by their religion, others feel that religious freedom applies to all and thus abortion should not be argued on the basis of the church.
“I grew up in a very religiois family and abortion has always been looked down on,” said University of Denver student Jessica Mattox. “Even if it’s not something that I would personally do, no one should be able to take that right away from you.”
Mattox, and many others, feel that being pro-choice does not necessarily mean that one is pro-abortion, but rather feel that a mother should get to decide the future of her own body.
“If you don’t agree with abortion, who are you to take that right away from someone else?” asks Mattox. “If your views don’t support something, don’t do it.”
Following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion, protests broke out across the country urging local and federal lawmakers to work towards protecting this right.
Public policy major at the University of Denver, Maddie Larkin attended a protest and march at her capitol building in Colorado. She described the day as impactful, and appreciated how Governor Polis listened to all of the speakers who presented before the protesters began marching.
“I was nervous because you always see protests on the news that seem dangerous, but
I genuinely felt safe and that everyone there was trying to reach the same goal, and support the same issue,” said Larkin. “It was empowering and I felt hopeful that there are still people in this country that want to fight for what is right.”
If the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion is confirmed and Roe is overturned, the reaction across America is expected to be extraordinary.
“The time to act is now,” said Larkin. “If you aren’t out there making your voice heard, then what are you doing?”
MFJS Reporter Spring 2022 