Who Decides Abortion Laws And Why?

Abortion laws are established by governments, and they vary from country to country and state to state. In the United States, abortion laws are decided at the state level, and they have been the subject of much debate and controversy. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that had protected abortion rights at the federal level since 1973. This ruling has resulted in a patchwork of abortion laws across the country, with some states banning abortion outright, while others have strengthened protections. The issue of abortion rights is deeply divisive in the United States, with those in support advocating for patient choice and bodily autonomy, while those opposed argue that the fetus has a right to live.

The role of the Supreme Court in establishing abortion laws

However, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that this right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. This balance was addressed through the creation of a pregnancy trimester timetable, which allowed states to impose varying restrictions on abortion depending on the stage of pregnancy. During the first trimester, states could only require minimal medical safeguards, such as licensed physicians performing abortions. In the second trimester, states could enact medical regulations to protect mothers' health. From the beginning of the third trimester, states could legally prohibit all abortions except when necessary to protect the mother's life or health.

The Roe v. Wade decision had a significant impact on abortion laws across the country, as abortion was now fundamentally legal in all 50 states. However, the ruling also ignited a fierce debate about the role of moral and religious views in politics and the methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication. Anti-abortion activists and politicians sought for decades to restrict abortion or overrule the decision.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending the constitutional right to abortion. The Court's majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition" and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe. This decision opened the door for states to ban abortion, with abortion currently being illegal in 13 states.

The impact of state-level abortion laws

The legality of abortion varies considerably across the US. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while others permit it up to a certain point, and some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has had a significant impact on state-level abortion laws. Previously, Roe v. Wade established a minimal period during which abortion was legal, with varying restrictions throughout the pregnancy. Now, individual states can regulate any aspect of abortion that is not preempted by federal law. This has resulted in a patchwork of abortion laws across the country, with some states banning abortion outright, while others protect abortion under state law.

The debate around abortion is often framed as a debate between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. However, most Americans agree with some positions of each side. A majority of Americans support access to abortion, and this support has gradually increased since the early 1970s.

Overall, the impact of state-level abortion laws in the US is complex and far-reaching. The laws vary widely from state to state, and the effects are felt differently by different individuals and communities. The debate around abortion continues to be a divisive issue in US politics and culture.

The criminalisation of abortion

Furthermore, criminalisation delays access to abortion, with providers sometimes having to wait until a woman's life is endangered to perform the procedure within legal exceptions. It imposes unnecessary travel and financial burdens on individuals and may result in delayed or denied post-abortion care. The criminalisation of abortion does not deter individuals from seeking abortions or information about the procedure but instead limits their access to safe and legal options.

To summarise, the criminalisation of abortion infringes on individuals' right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. It creates barriers to accessing safe and legal abortion services, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. It also impacts healthcare workers and the healthcare system as a whole. Decriminalisation is a crucial step towards ensuring access to high-quality abortion services and protecting the human rights of those seeking abortions.

The social stigma of abortion

Abortion stigma is a set of attitudes and beliefs that abortion is "bad, shameful, or wrong". It is a powerful tool used to restrict abortion access and perpetuate gender norms that harm marginalised communities. This stigma is a significant barrier to safe abortion care and can lead to unsafe abortions, with fatal consequences.

Abortion stigma is a complex and multi-layered issue that operates at various levels of society, including individual, community, institutional, legal, and cultural. It is influenced by factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and social support, and it can manifest in different ways, such as poor treatment from healthcare providers, gatekeeping and obstruction of access, secrecy and disclosure, unnecessary requirements, and lack of resources. This stigma not only affects those seeking abortions but also the healthcare providers themselves, who may face social and professional consequences for performing abortions.

The impact of abortion stigma can be seen in the ways people seeking abortions are treated by healthcare providers, who may be judgemental, insensitive, or lacking in empathy. This poor treatment can lead to feelings of isolation and shame, deterring people from seeking care. It can also result in clandestine or unsafe abortions, particularly in places where abortion is highly stigmatised, restricted, or criminalised.

Additionally, abortion stigma can create barriers to accessing safe abortion services. Healthcare providers may act as gatekeepers, obstructing access by intentionally misleading or discouraging people from seeking abortions. This can include imposing unnecessary delays, tests, or treatments, or requiring multiple visits and authorisations. Stigma can also lead to a lack of designated places for abortion services and inadequate infrastructure and resources, further hindering access.

The fear of stigma and criminal liability can also deter healthcare providers from offering abortion services. They may face opposition from their institutions, colleagues, or the community, and they may be deterred from providing care due to personal beliefs or fear of legal repercussions. This results in a lack of providers willing to perform abortions, further limiting access.

Abortion stigma has significant implications for the psychological well-being of those seeking abortions. It can lead to feelings of shame, guilt, and isolation, and it can make it difficult for people to seek support or care. Additionally, the secrecy surrounding abortion can have negative psychological consequences. The internalisation of abortion stigma can contribute to long-term mental health issues, and the fear of stigma may lead people to conceal their abortions, further perpetuating the stigma.

Abortion stigma is a powerful force that shapes the abortion care landscape and influences the experiences of both those seeking abortions and healthcare providers. It is a barrier to safe and accessible abortion care and can have detrimental effects on the well-being of those involved. Addressing abortion stigma is crucial to ensuring that everyone can make their own reproductive choices and access safe abortion services without fear or judgement.

The right to bodily autonomy

Thomson's argument centres on the idea that pregnancy can be viewed as an act of violence against women, violating their bodily integrity. She compares a pregnant woman to someone who, without their consent, has been hooked up to a famous violinist who is sick and relies on this connection to survive. In this scenario, detaching oneself from the violinist, resulting in their death, would be morally acceptable as the individual did not consent to this situation. Similarly, Thomson argues that a woman should have the right to detach herself from an unwanted pregnancy without seeking the death of the foetus as an end in itself.

However, critics of abortion rights, such as Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, counter this argument by asserting that abortion entails intentional killing. They argue that the intention of abortion is to ensure the child no longer exists, which is distinct from situations where the death of an unborn child is foreseen but not intended, such as in the case of a pregnant woman with a cancerous uterus. Additionally, they contend that the analogy between abortion and the violinist scenario is flawed as it ignores the moral relationship between mother and child, which already exists by the time abortion is contemplated.

The debate surrounding bodily autonomy and abortion remains contentious, with proponents and critics offering differing interpretations of individual freedom, equality, and the complex relationship between a mother and her unborn child.

Frequently asked questions