MORE THAN A FETUS
Video credit: Lindsay Augustine
CRIMINALIZING ABORTION COULD RESULT IN FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES
Elle Horst with graphics by Oliver Fichte
When she was 19 years old, Mallory* became pregnant against her will. Stuck in a physically and emotionally abusive relationship in a small town in Texas, she was met with judgment rather than support when her condition became known.
“They used God to justify what happened to me,” Mallory shared in a submission to Planned Parenthood. “They only cared about the future of the baby instead of my own.”
After Mallory found out she was pregnant, she received an ultrasound and was told her pregnancy was high risk; continuing to carry the fetus could threaten her life. Realizing that she was in a precarious situation with both her health and her relationship, she decided to seek out abortion services.
“As a young woman, I knew I was in danger physically with my ex-boyfriend and medically with the pregnancy, so I made the final decision to have the abortion,” Mallory said.
Mallory has now graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. She is healthy, happy, and working her dream job. Had she not had the ability to terminate her pregnancy, life could have looked far different.
Mallory is just one of many people who have received abortions. According to statistics published by the Life Choices Pregnancy Center, a nationwide pregnancy services provider, roughly 1 million abortions are performed annually. On a smaller scale, this data reveals that one in four women have had an abortion at some point in their lives.
These women have had a variety of different reasons for terminating their pregnancies. Some feel they do not have the maturity, economic security, or mental situation to provide a loving environment for their potential child. Some have their bodies violated and become pregnant as a result. Some are overjoyed to be pregnant, only to find that their child will be born with terrible, painful health conditions or that their own lives are at risk. The list goes on.
But soon, uterus owners could lose the ability to make choices that protect their physical and mental health.
Recently a Supreme Court draft decision was leaked and published by Politico. If it comes to fruition, the 98-page document will overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and likely result in severe restrictions or complete bans in numerous states, leaving millions with dangerous and unwanted pregnancies. For women throughout the nation, this news is a devastating blow.
“No government has the right to have a say in such personal and life-altering decisions,” said Menaca* in a statement for Planned Parenthood.
Menaca, already a mother, obtained an abortion after discovering that her soon-to-be son had major, irreparable heart defects. Medical professionals told her of the shortened life her fetus would live, one dependent on severe medical intervention. . After weighing out her options, Menaca made the heartbreaking choice to end her wanted pregnancy — she could not in good conscience keep the baby.
Criminalizing abortion does far more than simply preserve the life of a fetus. These new abortion bans could cause devastating effects, and they ignore exceptional circumstances that put mothers and their families in dire situations.
For one, these potential bans will, in reality, do very little to decrease abortion rates. A 1976 journal article written by Willard Cates Jr. and Roger Rochat, researchers from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), that looked at the effects of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision found that abortion’s legalization had little effect on the overall number of women who received one. Instead, they found that the number of illegal and dangerous abortion procedures dropped from around 130,000 to 17,000 between 1972 and 1974, and the death rate, which was disproportionally high among Black women, from abortion dropped drastically as well.
“People do not seek abortion lightly,” said an unnamed employee* at Planned Parenthood. “The people that come to our facilities do so because they have determined the outcome of keeping the pregnancy is far worse than completing it. Some have found their lives are at risk, some are not mentally or economically ready, and others have become pregnant at the hands of sexual assault or abuse. Taking legalized abortion away does not change their situations, and it will not affect the numbers of people turning to it as an option.”
By taking the right to abortion away, the government is putting people in need of reproductive health services at risk. Many will again turn to dangerous alternatives that can result in serious injury or death, from seeking illegal, costly procedures often performed by untrained, inexperienced individuals to infamous self remedies such as the “coat-hanger” abortion.
Additionally, while the bans and resulting consequences will be felt by many, they will, according to forensic pathologist Michael Baden, disproportionally affect poor and minority women who are unable to travel to receive a safe procedure or pay the fees required.
“It’s really terrible,” the employee said. “Those who choose to get an abortion with us are typically so grateful for the services and resources we provide. By taking away legalized abortion, people will turn to riskier options that could have devastating effects on their health and safety. It’s going to cause a lot of damage for many women.”
As people begin to realize these realities, fear for the future is setting in. Nikhila Raman, an incoming freshman at the University of Wisconsin, is one such individual with these fears. Noting that Wisconsin is a state likely to severely restrict or ban abortion, she realizes she may not have the resources should the need arise.
“It makes me uncomfortable and a little scared knowing I wouldn’t have that choice there if it’s necessary at any point,” Raman said.
Statistics published by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) demonstrate that sexual assault on college campuses is pervasive, with women ages 18-24 at heightened risk to become the victims of sexual violence. RAINN found that among undergraduate students, 26.4% of females experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation. And despite the fact that five percent of rapes result in an unwanted pregnancy, some states have decided that this may not warrant an abortion.
“The statistics are terrifying; the numbers are so high,” Raman said. “It’s scary to think about since I’m going to a college in a state where abortion may soon not be an option for those who may already have to deal with the trauma of sexual assault. Young women and girls can do everything right, have something terrible happen to them, and in this weird, twisted way get punished for it. ”
Those who adamantly argue for the lives they believe they are saving with these bans may need to consider the quality of life that will likely be lived by children born into adverse circumstances as a result. Oftentimes, an unplanned child causes severe disruption to the life of the parents, interfering with career goals and causing a huge financial burden that they cannot bear. Mothers bear the brunt of these effects and are also more likely to be left alone without the support of the father.
According to The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families, a book published in the National Library of Medicine, “A complex and extensive group of studies… show that unintended pregnancies… carry appreciable risks for children, women, men, and families. The child of an unwanted conception is at greater risk of weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth, of dying in its first year of life, of being abused, and of not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.”
Bans on abortion could cause disastrous consequences that could complicate or ruin the lives of the mothers, fathers, and the children people believe they are saving. The consequences go much deeper and concern much more than the potential life of a fetus.
*These sources have been kept anonymous or had their last names redacted due to the topic’s controversial nature and concern for safety. Their anonymity is in accordance with Carlmont Media’s Anonymous Sourcing Policy
Graphic by Oliver Fichte
ROE V. WADE COULD BE THE FIRST OF MANY PRECEDENTS TO FALL
In a month or so, the landscape of abortion rights could be fundamentally changed. The initial Supreme Court majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and leaked by POLITICO, could result in the reversal of the landmark Roe v. Wade (1973) case and would provide a legal platform for the implementation of abortion bans across the nation (some of which are already being pursued).
Soon after the unprecedented leak, pro-abortion groups began releasing statements criticizing Alito’s opinion.
“The leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, a case primed from the outset to overturn Roe, must be a wake-up call. We’re at a dangerous, unprecedented moment. This court is the most extreme and out-of-step in decades, and they have shown us where they want to go on abortion rights,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Furthermore, these groups also called attention to the potential consequences of such a decision.
“The devastating consequences of [overturning Roe] will fall most heavily on Black, Indigenous and other people of color, immigrants, people living in rural communities, LGBTQ+ people… among other marginalized groups. It will also broaden inequities in access to care from state to state,” said Arneta Rogers, Director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Reproductive Justice Program, via a press release for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California.
On the other side of the coin, pro-life groups, such as Americans United for Life, lauded the draft decision’s content.
“We stand alongside all Americans who have waited so hopefully and for so long for the Supreme Court to reverse Roe, to set America on the path to abortion abolition, and to restore justice to our nation,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO of Americans United for Life via a press statement.
This division can have serious political consequences. A fractious topic that largely splits along religious, political, generational, and ethnic lines, abortion is a make or break issue for almost one-fourth of American voters, according to Gallup. Moreover, with the impending decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the result is likely to motivate more Democrats to vote in the 2022 midterms, given Alito’s opinion is a sign of things to come.
The decision isn’t final until the official decision is released, which is expected to be in late June or early July.
In the meantime, abortion rights groups and pro-life groups have mobilized in support of their respective positions, pressuring the Supreme Court and legislators in Congress and their respective states to take action.
Besides the direct impact on abortion rights, Alito’s leak also insinuated a possible forthcoming challenge to other precedents. Buried within the 98-page draft decision, Justice Alito explicitly calls out two Supreme Court precedents (Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas) as not protecting rights that are “deeply rooted in history.”
Obergefell v. Hodges (which protects the right for same-sex couples to marry) and Lawrence v. Texas (which legalized sodomy) were momentous in terms of greater national LGBTQ+ acceptance. But Alito dissented on Obergefell v. Hodges, and he threatens to lead the charge to overturn that decision, which he has derided as an attack on religious freedom, once more.
Behind Alito’s majority draft opinion lies an important implication: Obergefell v. Hodges, much like Roe v. Wade, relies on the inferred right to privacy afforded to Americans by the 14th Amendment and therefore could be at risk. The legal arguments made in amicus briefs submitted last year by the ACLU and a bevy of constitutional scholars focused on the legitimacy of Roe via the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause,” an aspect of the law that similarly supports the ruling in Obergefell.
And while some legal scholars believe Obergefell v. Hodges to be in little danger should Roe v. Wade fall, the fact still remains: LGBTQ+ rights in America were built on the same foundation that upheld the right to abortion.
In a summary of the briefs provided by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization wrote that “[if] the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe and Casey, it would also call into question dozens of other liberty decisions beyond abortion,” such as Obergefell, which was cited eight separate times in the constitutional scholar’s brief.
HRC’s Warbelow outlined the effects that overturning Roe could have in the immediate future.
Warbelow said, “[If Roe is overturned, it] encourages state lawmakers pandering to the base to test the limits of court recognized LGBTQ+ equality.”
Yet, in California, the preemptive fight for abortion rights has already landed a significant blow. On May 11, Gov. Gavin Newson announced a comprehensive legislative package that included an expansion of abortion rights and benefits to businesses who leave anti-abortion states.
These advancements have been celebrated by pro-abortion groups. Despite the Supreme Court’s looming decision, Rogers emphasized the ACLU’s commitment to preserving abortion rights in California.
“No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, we remain committed to the fight to protect and advance this broad vision of reproductive justice across our state and ensure that all Californians, and especially communities that have been excluded from power, have the resources to ensure self-determined reproductive decision-making and family formation,” Rogers said.
For the LGBTQ+ population, the final decision on Dobbs could have a major impact on their day-to-day lives and fundamental rights. To the Human Right Campaign, it seems to be of the utmost importance that allies and advocates make their voices heard.
Warbelow said, “What we need now is outrage, anger, and action for those among our community who are about to see the most destructive attack on our civil rights in a generation. We will fight back.”
ROE VS. RELIGION: RABBI LISA KINGSTON ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
Rabbi Lisa Kingston (Peninsula Temple Beth El) is one such leader. In this episode, she shares her experiences terminating two wanted pregnancies for medical reasons. Join Rabbi Kingston and Chesney as they discuss the importance of abortion access and the nuanced reality of reproductive rights.
Music - “La Femme Fetal” by Digable Planets
Religion and reproductive rights will be forever entangled in the impending era of post-Roe v. Wade. It’s impossible to mention the pro-life movement without acknowledging the “American” Christian values that it claims to represent.
But what about everyone else? Those in favor of restricting abortion are quick to erase religious ideologies that support a woman’s right to choose - religions like Reform Judaism - and the religious leaders that ensure that their places of worship are a safe space for uterus owners.
ANTI-ABORTION ADVOCATES DIDN'T BIRTH THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
It's no secret that most Americans — about 60% — support the right to abortion. Yet, the anti-abortion movement is prevalent in our media and government.
Recently, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked, catapulting this issue further into the forefront of politics. This ruling would decide Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that came to fruition after Mississippi passed a 15-week abortion ban. While Alito’s opinion is not final, it indicates a strong possibility of an abortion-less future in some states.
In reality, the anti-abortion movement isn’t about pregnancy but was a well-organized political move thought out by conservative leaders.
This anti-abortion movement is often linked to the conservative right due to white evangelicals comprising a large portion of its voter base. According to Pew Research, 84% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in the 2020 election, the highest percentage of any religious group polled. Evangelical Protestantism also has the third-highest percentage of voters that believe abortion should be illegal in most cases.
By the 1990s, discrimination against Catholics was almost nonexistent, and the Klu Klux Klan had replaced them with a new target: Jewish people. During this time, hate crimes against Jewish people made up between 75% to 85% of all United States hate crimes.
This was the nail in the coffin for pro-abortion evangelicals. Catholicism’s disdain for abortions was now trendy, and Judaism’s ready acceptance was condemned.
All this to say, if abortion was only a small part of the organization of political Protestantism, race was the main uniting force.
"I tried everything to get them involved in politics. I tried the abortion issue. I tried the women’s rights issue. I tried pornography. Nothing got their attention — that is the attention of evangelical leaders — until the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) began to pursue the tax exemption of racially segregated schools,” Randal Balmer, a historian from Dartmouth College, paraphrased of Weyrich.
Segregation — or rather the lack of it — was that issue. In 1954, the Supreme Court mandated the desegregation of public schools through Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and in 1976 that precedent was also set for private schools with Runyon v. McCrary.
In 1976, the amount of privately schooled children in religious schools was between 90% to 96%. This directly correlates to the shift of churchgoers towards conservatism.
In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS was allowed to remove the tax-exempt status from religious private schools that discriminated on the basis of race in Bob Jones University v. United States. The removal of tax exemption for Bob Jones University had initially occurred in 1975, spurring Weyrich into his leadership over the religious right.
Discrimination wasn’t a good look on the national stage, however. Voters were much more likely to vote on abortion, even though voters did not rate it as an important issue in the 1980 presidential election. Former President Ronald Reagan won his presidency in 1980, possibly due to his outspoken opinion on abortion.
At the end of the day, the anti-abortion narrative leads back to race anyway. In a report by the CDC, white women were the least likely racial group to get an abortion. This is correlated to multiple causes, including fewer unintended pregnancy rates. Black women were also almost three times as likely as white women to die in the birthing process, most likely caused by systemic racism in the medical industry. Many of these problems are also caused by black women’s low wages, about 63% of white men’s earnings. Without sufficient funds, people of color are unable to properly care for children, buy birth control for themselves, and pay for decent healthcare.
Race isn’t the only underlying factor of the “religious” right. While evangelicals take the forefront of the political field, many religions disagree with evangelical Protestants on abortion. Judaism, and quite a few protestant religions, support abortion in at least some cases. Other religions, like Buddhism, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, have not stated any official position, leaving the political choice up to their constituents.
“The big question of what makes the Jewish position very, very different from the Catholic and Evangelical Christian community is that taking the life of a fetus was not considered by any means as murdering a human, meaning that during pregnancy at any stage to birth, the fetus is not considered a full human being,” said Moshe Levin, a retired rabbi.
However, even when religious leaders announce positions, they do not always signify the general beliefs of their congregations. As of 2019, about 29% of religious U.S. adults said that they did not have confidence in their clergy to provide advice on abortion legislation, with another 30% saying that they only had some confidence.
“I think it’s fine to not have a child because it could affect you and the child if you keep it,” Redmon said. “I think in the end, that’s just going to make it a lot worse, and that’s not what God wants you to do, but I think it’s something that you and maybe God have to figure out: Is this a situation that is good or is it a situation that would make me and a child worse?”
In fact, President Joe Biden is a Catholic himself, yet he supports abortion, as shown in his official statement that was released after the Supreme Court’s unofficial ruling. This goes directly against his religion’s stance.
With so many high-ranking politicians having ties to religion, the separation between church and state seems almost impossible, with many Americans now questioning the Supreme Court.
“The religions and their viewpoints should not have a say in legal issues in the United States of any sort because of the separation of church and state, which is actually a fundamental principle of our country and one of the reasons our country has succeeded where it has,” Levin said.
While many people think that religious judges should recuse themselves from cases involving abortion, this isn’t an option, as a legal standard has been set to allow religiously affiliated judges to rule on cases involving abortion.
As of the ruling, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would limit abortions to six weeks in Idaho, Texas, and Oklahoma; 15 weeks in Florida and Virginia; 20 weeks in West Virginia; and over 22 weeks in all other states.
“I’m hoping that the outcry against it forces [the Supreme Court] first to withdraw that preliminary ruling, and secondly, to realize that they may have a majority on the court, but they don’t have a majority in the country,” Levin said.
DEAR JUSTICE ALITO...
The landmark court case Roe v. Wade has protected the right to an abortion without excessive government intervention for 49 years. Through a progressive lens, it is regarded as a legal symbol of bodily autonomy - and it’s being threatened.
On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft of the Supreme Court majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases based on its precedents. The draft was penned by Justice Samuel Alito. If the justices rule in agreement with this draft, abortion access in many states will be restricted.
I spoke to six individuals, unified by their pro-choice
ideology, and asked them to respond to Justice Alito’s draft.