Roe V. Wade. Three simple words have become the easiest way to ignite an uproar within a matter of nanoseconds over the past few months. The controversy peaked after the 1973 Supreme Court case and federal law was overturned on June 24. The decision not only takes away fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, but it could endanger the lives of many pregnant people, standing as a major step backwards in the fight for equality.

The original case was a huge landmark for women’s independence and equality in the U.S. Like all Supreme Court decisions, the final decision smacks of partisan politics as justices land lifetime gigs courtesy of presidential appointment. Three of the current Supreme Court justices were nominated by former president Donald Trump, and six of the nine were appointed by Republicans. It seems unjust to have such a big decision rest on the shoulders of men and women not elected by the people.

It’s important to understand why this decision was made. For decades, Supreme Court justices have abided by an unwritten rule that they cannot revisit a case once a final decision has been made. This legal doctrine is known as stare decisis, or “let the decision stand.” Though the principle is not legally binding or uniformly enforced, court members are often hesitant to overturn prior cases. In fact, the Supreme Court only revisits and goes on to overturn 0.05 percent of the time. Typically when a case is overturned, it is due to the fact that the decision is no longer workable or fits appropriately into modern social conditions. However, according to The Conversation, “justices became more willing to reject precedents they thought were badly reasoned, simply wrong or inconsistent with their own sense of the constitutional framers’ intentions.”

This has been a goal on the Republican agenda for quite some time; it was even a part of Trump’s 2016 campaign for presidency. To most Republicans or right-leaning citizens, this Supreme Court decision is saving babies. Unfortunately, this creates a grim reality for expecting mothers.

For pregnant people, this decision could limit access to life-saving healthcare. Abortion is a medical procedure. Contrary to the pro-life propaganda, it is not the teenage delinquent’s birth control, a decision made on a whim, and it most certainly is not the easy option. The politicization of healthcare in the last few years has already had detrimental consequences which can be seen in the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused a large divide and resulted in the death of thousands of citizens. Pregnant people’s lives are now also being put at risk.

Pregnant people seek abortions for a wide range of reasons. In fact, as mentioned in the New York Times, 60 percent of mothers who have abortions already have children. A pregnant person may want to terminate their pregnancy based on financial reasons, cases of domestic abuse, rape, incest, health risks, and more. From the perspective of a white, male, financially stable politician in America, the choice to get an abortion is black and white, but that’s simply not true. A physician’s job is to assess the risk being put on the patient as well as on the fetus, educate the patient, then work with them to find a solution that works best.

It’s a common misbelief that having an abortion is somehow a selfish act; that the mother is only thinking of herself. That is far from the truth. There are a number of reasons why someone would get an abortion, such as not wanting to put a child in the foster care system, fetal anomalies, or not having the financial means to support a child.

These reasons still stand even if abortion is harder to acess or illegal. Even if a pregnant person cannot get an abortion legally, they will simply resort to an unsafe one or travel to a state where the procedure has not been banned. A recent study from the University of Texas at Austin found that 90 percent of those who were predicted to get an abortion managed to find a work-around and got one anyway. Unsafe abortions are a large cause of maternal mortality, but can be prevented with access to safe and affordable care. This decision means more and more women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions. This ban is not the “salvation” that pro-lifers believe it to be.

A major point that seems to come up in the conversation against abortion is that the pregnant person could just put their babies in the foster system, but that is not a viable solution to an unwanted pregancy. The United States spends $30 million dollars on the foster care system annually, yet there is little evidence that it provides the panacea claimed by advocates.

In fact, according to Foster America, “70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system having been involved with child welfare, 60 percent of sexually exploited children and 33 percent of homeless young adults with foster care histories.” There are also large racial disparities that show up within the foster care system, with people of color and low-income families being more greatly affected. These groups are also being primarily negatively affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade and now, the scarcity of reproductive rights. The overturning of Roe v. Wade will only make the foster system worse.

Frankly, if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one. The overturning of Roe v. Wade will only increase the mortality rate of teenage mothers, as well as overpopulate the already overwhelmed foster care and adoption system. It will be incredibly detrimental to multiple groups of people; women, people of color, low-income families, etc. The 34 states where reproductive rights have either been codified or completely banned will not “save” unborn babies. The case should not have been revisited in the first place, and the consequences of this grievous Supreme Court choice will only continue.

by Emma Toney and Abi Potratz

Published October 3, 2022

Oshkosh West Index Volume 119 Issue 1

Supreme Court abortion decision ignores precedence in favor of partisanship