Roe v Wade: A 45 Year Old Decision Could Be in Danger
We’ve seen the headlines pop up in our iPhone news app – ‘Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been nominated to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.’ But what does it mean? In the beginning of his campaign, President Trump promised he would appoint anti-abortion judges and would work to overturn Roe v Wade; so is this decision the beginning of his pledge? We have heard it all, we have discussed and heard all opinions regarding the morality of abortion. Is pro-life focusing on the protection of a human a life?In doing this, do we threaten women’s freedom and lengthen the journey towards equality? Is abortion morally correct if it is performed in the first trimester? When does conception begin? These questions have been passed back and forth far too long by too many white men; but all questions aside, this is what the current Trump Administration’s pro-life stance and new judge appointment means for women right now.
While Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination doesn’t put Roe v Wade in immediate danger, it will create restrictions and limit resources. State-run organizations will establish waiting periods, parent approvals, or even require medical or rape proof before a woman can follow through with an abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the decision for legalizing or criminalizing abortion would be defined by each individual state. Fortunately, around 20 states will continue honoring the 1973 decision, such as California, but others like the Dakotas (which have trigger laws in effect) would make abortion illegal if (or when) Roe v Wade is repealed.On the bright side, this is not the first time that Roehas been in danger of repeal; however the Supreme Court has preserved its original ruling arguing that it is a matter of constitutional right to privacy. So, it seems that privacy is constitutionally equal but reproductive health and rights are judged case by case for women.
In my opinion,the current abortion rights debate has less to do with morality and more to do with a gender inequality. Arguing that control of women’s reproductive rights is protection of innocent life is laughable, considering the same administration has made it harder for millions of Americans to have access to affordable health care and has separated immigrant children from parents without worrying about the the morality of orphaning them. By creating a right-wing congress and a conservative Supreme Court, women’s rights will be pushed four decades back. Once women’s bodies can be controlled, it’s only a matter of time when the rest gets pushed back with it: how about more of a pay gap everyone?