An Analysis of the Potential Overturning of Roe v. Wade
She wore her hair with a middle part, the face-framing bits tucked beneath her iconic glasses. She wrote with unwavering conviction because she wrote about a cause much more significant than herself. For decades, she tirelessly fought for the woman’s right to shamelessly and fearlessly make choices for her own body under the eyes of the law.
In the late 1960s, feminism was a religion to Gloria Steinem and the herd of women behind her. It represented hope and empowerment to the disillusioned. It celebrated women, whose fierce and undying spirits never dwindled, even in their often catastrophic experiences. The feminist movement brought together thousands of women, who joined hands to demand freedom and equal opportunity. “Women are not commodities,” they would chant.
Women are not commodities.
But somehow, even after this wondrous country of ours had the privilege of knowing Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Toni Morrison, and many many more, we still have a hard time understanding that women are not commodities. Apparently, it’s rocket science and neurosurgery all wrapped into one.
We have–at least, we had–come very far from the initial days of Gloria Steinem. It took years of active effort and gentle persuasion to finally legalize abortions and recognize that abortions are a form of healthcare. This is no longer a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. This is no longer a “let’s reconsider the morality of abortions and have a very in-depth philosophical discussion about it like pretentious idiots while women die from botched abortions” debate. This marks when our oh-so-progressive, oh-so-free nation undid a good chunk of its signature progress and freedom.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is equivalent to taking the entirety of the women’s rights movement and peddling it back sixty years. It’s equivalent to erasing the work of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan and Toni Morrison, and thousands and thousands of women who chanted and screamed “Women are not commodities” in unison.
For some unbeknownst reason, this issue has catalyzed the political divisiveness in this country. And if you couldn’t tell by this point, I never quite understood the pro-life rationale. But before I went on a rant about it on this page, I wanted to make sure that I got my facts right. This is why I read the initial draft of the Alito Plan that was leaked to Politico. And for now, let’s just say that the fate of our nation is not exactly in the hands of those capable of anything close to rocket science or neurosurgery.
To my surprise–I can’t decide whether it’s pleasant or not–the draft never really mentioned anything about the morality of abortions. The heart of it was rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that the rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution need to be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Apparently, bodily autonomy isn’t deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. Who knew.
Essentially, the draft seeks to decentralize all abortion-related legislation. In other words, it wants to give each state the right to choose how they legislate abortions, which wouldn’t be a problem if twenty-six states didn’t want to criminalize abortions, to begin with. The intent of the draft is to disperse political power, and thereby, reduce any possibility of totalitarianism. The draft even states that the ruling of Roe v. Wade was an “abuse of judicial authority,” making it “egregiously wrong from the start.”
When we arbitrarily deem rights as not being “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and use that as a reason to take them away, we embody the epitome of totalitarianism. I mean, I seriously do not understand why this is so incredibly difficult to grasp.
Furthermore, our beloved Justice Alito goes on to argue that due to the increasing inclination for parents to adopt children, abortion has become a lot less necessary. You know what else is a lot less necessary? Men making laws about women’s bodies. But we don’t actively legislate against that, do we? Just because something is increasingly unnecessary doesn’t mean that individuals don’t have a right to it. Refusing to protect an individual’s rights because you declare that it is–on a collective, societal level–unnecessary is, in some people’s brains…logical?
Alito even explicitly states that in recent times, “the domestic supply of supply of infants relinquished at birth….became virtually nonexistent.” The domestic supply of infants. Wow.
In what universe is this not totalitarian? The reasoning for repealing one of the most important decisions in women’s history is rooted in a sad attempt at population control–an attempt at increasing the “domestic supply of infants.”
Granted, as admitted in the ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the State does have a legitimate incentive to encourage the creation of more human life (I have no idea what else to call it–but it’s better than babymaking?). No one ever denied this. No one has ever said that babies are not important. No one ever denied that abortion is dark and deeply traumatizing for many women. But at the end of the day, if the fetus can’t survive outside the womb, it is a part of the woman’s body, and she must have the ability to choose whatever she wants to do with it. When you make it okay to criminalize a woman because you have a problem with the diminishing “domestic supply of infants,” all you’re doing is labeling women as baby factories. Seriously, call us commodities already, why don’t you?
In my research for this topic, I was surprised to learn the role that Casey played in the draft. Much of the problem stems from the decision in Casey, where the Supreme Court got rid of the trimester scheme. Instead, it adopted a more flexible viability scheme: it declared that women with pre-viable fetuses should be able to get abortions. However, its wording was vague and ambiguous, stating that “States were forbidden to adopt any regulation that imposed an ‘undue burden’ on a woman’s right to have an abortion.” Alito spends a considerable amount of time emphasizing the lack of distinction between a ‘due burden’ and an ‘undue burden’ in the ruling. Therefore, states could basically place any burden on a woman’s right to receive an abortion, and argue that it is a “due burden.” I mean, that’s a huge disappointment for me, who thought that this case was an iconic, important one in legalizing and destigmatizing abortions.
But if poorly defined diction is all it takes to strike down important rights, then I have no idea what to say. Everything about this situation is heartbreaking. The draft, the integrity, and confidentiality of the Supreme Court being compromised, but most importantly, the blatant infiltration of blind identity politics into landmark Supreme Court decisions.
The Judiciary Branch was established to counteract any possible demagoguery. If we collectively elect representatives that are inherently corrupt and unjust, the Judiciary Branch exists to ensure that some level of morality and justice is maintained in our societal and political structures. That’s why the confidentiality of the Supreme Court is of utmost importance: under no circumstances can the public’s reaction skew a decision. But in this case, the corruption and deceit were as obvious as the public outrage that followed.
I never plan on getting an abortion, I want to have children. So this overturning doesn’t technically affect me. But it does affect us. There is no point in having political or electoral power if we don’t have bodily autonomy. There is no point in contributing our talents to a society where our roles are pre-determined. Roe v. Wade is important to all women–white, black, pro-choice, pro-life. It declared our freedom to choose what we feel is best for our own bodies and our own lives. It inspired countless young girls–who wouldn’t go on to receive abortions–to live their lives as they pleased, and to do so proudly in a nation that supported them.
So let’s wear our middle parts, the face-framing bits tucked beneath our glasses. Because we have work to do. And unlike last time, we have Gloria Steinem’s footsteps to guide us.
