The Right To Choose: Abortion Laws And The Constitution

The topic of anti-abortion laws being unconstitutional is a highly debated issue in the United States. In June 2022, the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, giving individual states the power to restrict or protect abortion. This has resulted in a wave of new state laws and constitutional amendments regarding abortion access. While some states have chosen to protect abortion as a constitutional right, others have implemented complete or pre-viability bans. The debate surrounding the constitutionality of anti-abortion laws centres around the interpretation of constitutional protections for liberty, due process, privacy, and reproductive rights. Additionally, religious freedom and health care amendment challenges have been raised in several states. The impact of these laws disproportionately affects marginalised communities, including people of colour, people with disabilities, immigrants, and those living in poverty. The United States' anti-abortion legislation also violates international human rights law, as it infringes on various rights such as life, health, privacy, liberty, security, and freedom from torture.

The Hyde Amendment withholds federal Medicaid funding from abortion, with narrow exceptions

The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, withholds federal Medicaid funding for abortion services. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. Since its introduction, the amendment has been re-enacted every year, with exceptions varying over time. The current exceptions to the Hyde Amendment are abortions to save the life of the pregnant person or in cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

The Hyde Amendment interferes with the private health decisions that are best left to a patient, their doctor, and their family. It is a dangerous and unfair policy that lets politicians interfere in people's personal health care decisions. The harm caused by the Hyde Amendment and other abortion coverage bans has disproportionately fallen on Black, Indigenous, and other people of colour. It is a matter of economic and racial justice to end the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment restricts abortion coverage for women enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, Native American women, U.S. servicewomen and veterans, women in the Peace Corps, federal employee families, D.C. women residents, and women in immigration detention facilities and prisons. It is worth noting that the amendment does not prevent women who receive health care through the U.S. government from paying for the procedure out of pocket.

The impact of the Hyde Amendment is significant. Medicaid is a significant source of health coverage for women with higher rates of abortion in the U.S., including women with low incomes and women of colour. Due to the amendment, women who have made the personal decision to end a pregnancy but cannot afford to do so may have to forgo basic necessities or resort to unsafe methods.

Since the Hyde Amendment took effect in 1980, federal funding for abortions has been drastically reduced, with abortions financed by federal Medicaid dropping from 300,000 per year to a few thousand. The amendment has also influenced other health care programs, with similar policies extended to coverage for federal employees and their families, military personnel and their families, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and inmates in federal prisons.

The Federal Abortion Ban criminalises abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy

In 2007, the US Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning abortion procedures, criminalising abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. This decision, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overruled Roe v. Wade, which had previously recognised a woman's constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The Court held that abortion laws would henceforth be sustained if there was a rational basis for them, leaving the matter to the political process.

The Federal Abortion Ban has significant implications for patients and doctors, affecting those who need second-trimester abortions for medical reasons and the healthcare professionals who care for them. It abandons over 30 years of precedent that prioritised patients' health in laws restricting abortion access. This decision gives politicians the power to interfere in people's reproductive health care decisions, which is an intrusion into insurance coverage for those with low incomes.

The ban has faced opposition from abortion providers and advocates, who argue that it violates state constitutions and laws. These challenges fall into three categories: broad constitutional challenges, health care amendment challenges, and religious freedom challenges. Some state courts have temporarily blocked several bans while litigation is ongoing, and the ultimate arbiter of these cases will be each state's highest court.

The debate around abortion continues to be a highly contested issue, with states enacting varying restrictions and bans. While some states have amended their constitutions to include abortion protections, others have asserted that their constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The legal landscape at the state level has been activated as never before, with states moving swiftly to restrict access to abortion following the Dobbs decision.

The Federal Abortion Ban, as part of these ongoing efforts to restrict abortion, has faced criticism for infringing on individuals' rights to make their own personal medical decisions.

Federal and State 20-week bans take away a patient's ability to make their own medical decisions

Federal and state 20-week bans on abortion are unconstitutional and take away a patient's ability to make their own medical decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion. This decision has activated the legal landscape at the state level, with many states swiftly moving to restrict or ban abortion access.

The issue of abortion has become highly politicized, with anti-abortion politicians in Congress and state legislatures pushing for a nationwide 20-week ban on abortion. These bans are part of a broader agenda to ban all abortion and are opposed by doctors and health organizations. While almost 99% of abortions occur before 21 weeks, there are complex circumstances where abortions are needed later in pregnancy, such as severe fetal anomalies and serious risks to the pregnant person's health. In such situations, patients and their doctors need every medical option available.

The right to make health care decisions is a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy and liberty. By imposing a 20-week ban on abortion, the government is overreaching its authority and infringing on the patient's right to make their own medical decisions. This ban limits the options available to patients and their doctors, who are best equipped to make informed decisions about their health care.

Furthermore, the ban criminalizes doctors and restricts their ability to provide constitutionally protected care. It interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and prevents doctors from offering all available health care options to their patients. The ban also has a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups, who already face systemic barriers to obtaining an abortion.

The constitutionality of abortion bans varies from state to state, and some states have amended their constitutions to include explicit protections for abortion rights. The ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of state-level abortion bans is each state's highest court. As of October 2024, 41 states have abortion bans in effect, with only limited exceptions. However, in six states, these laws are currently blocked by courts.

The debate over abortion involves weighty legal, moral, medical, and political arguments. While there are valid concerns on both sides of the issue, the imposition of a 20-week ban on abortion ultimately takes away a patient's ability to make their own medical decisions and infringes on their fundamental rights.

TRAP laws are targeted restrictions against abortion providers

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws are a set of stringent requirements imposed on abortion providers and women's health centres. These laws are costly, severe, and medically unnecessary, and are often pushed by anti-abortion politicians under the guise of "women's health". The true aim of TRAP laws is to restrict abortion access by making it difficult for abortion providers to operate.

TRAP laws have been criticised for not improving safety but instead blocking access to safe medical care. They impose onerous and medically unnecessary building requirements for ambulatory surgical centres (ASCs) and require doctors who provide abortions to obtain hospital admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. These restrictions are particularly challenging to meet as abortion is a safe procedure with a 99% safety record, according to the CDC and other experts. As a result, TRAP laws have devastated access to safe and legal abortions in several states across the US.

TRAP laws create burdensome and medically unnecessary regulations for abortion clinics, with the goal of forcing them to shut down. They impose costly regulations on abortion providers, such as requiring them to meet the same standards as Ambulatory Surgical Centres (ASCs). This includes stringent rules on hallway width, complex HVAC systems, specific dimensions for operating rooms, and specifications for janitors' closets. Many abortion clinics cannot afford the price tag of compliance and are forced to shut down.

TRAP laws also include personnel and staffing requirements that are unnecessary and serve only to make it harder for people to get an abortion. For example, some states have passed laws preventing doctors from performing abortions unless they are board-certified OB/GYNs. In March 2019, Arkansas passed such a measure, which would have left only one clinic in the state providing abortions.

The impact of TRAP laws is significant, leading to the closure of health centres and delaying or preventing access to safe and legal abortions. They create geographic barriers to abortion access, increase patient costs, cause delays in accessing care, and decrease the availability of second-trimester abortion services. These barriers disproportionately affect women of colour and women of lower socioeconomic status.

Mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, and biased counseling are used to deter abortions

In the United States, abortion laws and policies have been rapidly changing since the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson. This has resulted in varying laws and requirements across different states. While mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, and biased counseling are not federally mandated, they are used as a means to deter abortions in several states.

Mandatory Ultrasounds

Several states have laws requiring abortion providers to offer women the opportunity to view their ultrasound images before an abortion. For example, in Wisconsin, a law mandates providers to display and describe the ultrasound image to patients, even if the woman does not wish to see it. The technician must give a verbal description of the fetal parts, heartbeat, and current development of the fetus. This is not medically necessary and is not covered by medical guidelines. While ultrasounds are typically used to determine gestation, multiple pregnancies, and other clinical indications, the mandatory viewing of ultrasound images is not integral to abortion care.

Research on the effects of mandatory ultrasounds has shown mixed results. Some women reported that viewing the ultrasound image helped them decide to continue the pregnancy, especially if they were already uncertain about their decision. However, the majority of women reported that viewing the ultrasound had no impact on their decision, and in some cases, it solidified their decision to have an abortion. Overall, mandatory ultrasounds have been found to slightly increase the rate of women continuing their pregnancies, but the impact varies depending on individual circumstances.

Waiting Periods

In addition to mandatory ultrasounds, many states have implemented waiting periods between counseling and an abortion procedure. In some states, counseling must be received in person, and patients must wait a specified time period, usually 24 hours, before the procedure. This effectively requires two trips to obtain an abortion, which can be a hardship for some individuals. Waiting periods, along with mandatory ultrasounds, are used as a deterrent to abortion and can create additional barriers and challenges for those seeking abortion care.

Biased Counseling

Biased counseling laws, often introduced under the label of "Informed Consent" or "Women's Right to Know," require physicians to provide women with anti-choice materials and information before an abortion procedure. These laws are currently enforced in more than 20 states and serve to hamper women's access to abortion by providing inaccurate and incomplete medical information. The information given to women often includes medically inaccurate statements, such as a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer or the assertion that abortions cause psychological harm.

Biased counseling laws intimidate women and discourage them from seeking medical care and exercising their reproductive rights. They also make it more difficult for clinics to provide quality healthcare, as they require doctors to deliver the anti-choice messages, limiting the time and resources available for actual medical care. These laws single out abortion from other medical procedures and reflect a lack of respect for women's moral decision-making.

In conclusion, mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, and biased counseling are used as deterrents to abortion and can create significant barriers for those seeking abortion care. While the impact of these measures varies depending on individual circumstances, they have been shown to increase the rate of women continuing their pregnancies to some extent. These laws reflect the ongoing debate and varying attitudes towards abortion in the United States.

Frequently asked questions