Abortion Laws: Unjust, Unfair, And Unconstitutional

Abortion laws are wrong because they deny bodily autonomy and create wide-ranging repercussions. Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to control their own fertility and exercise reproductive autonomy. Abortion laws infringe on these rights, forcing people to resort to unsafe abortions, which can lead to fatal consequences such as maternal deaths and disabilities. Additionally, abortion laws disproportionately impact marginalised communities, who face social, economic, and political conditions that hinder their ability to access safe abortions. Furthermore, abortion laws contribute to a culture of disposability and dehumanisation, where the lives of certain groups are deemed less valuable or worthy of protection. The criminalisation of abortion also results in a chilling effect, deterring healthcare providers from offering the best care options and people from seeking post-abortion care.

Abortion laws deny bodily autonomy and create wide-ranging repercussions such as increased poverty and negative public records

Abortion laws deny bodily autonomy and create wide-ranging repercussions, such as increased poverty and negative public records.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and reproductive justice. This means that individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their bodies and their future. In the context of abortion, bodily autonomy refers to a woman's authority over her body and her reproductive choices. By restricting access to abortion, laws infringe upon this autonomy and limit a woman's agency in deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

The denial of bodily autonomy through abortion laws can have far-reaching consequences, including increased poverty. In a 2005 study, 73% of women undergoing an abortion cited an inability to afford a baby as a reason for their decision. This percentage rose to 81% for women below the federal poverty line. Additionally, while the abortion rate among all American women declined by 8% between 2000 and 2008, it increased by 18% among poor American women. This indicates a clear link between economic realities and abortion rates, suggesting that poverty can lead to an increase in abortions.

Furthermore, abortion laws can result in negative public records, particularly in states with mandatory abortion reporting. These reports often contain sensitive information, including demographic characteristics, the reason for the procedure, and the county where the patient resides. While these reports are typically collected by state departments of public health, they may also be subject to disclosure as public records. This has led to instances of anti-abortion activists utilising freedom of information laws to access and disseminate abortion reports, violating patients' privacy.

The intersection of abortion laws and public records can have significant repercussions. For example, in Seattle, an anti-abortion activist filed a public records request for abortion reports from six clinics, which included sensitive information such as patients' cities of residence, ages, ethnicities, and abortion histories. While a temporary order was granted to protect specific clinic information and patients' hometowns, it highlights the vulnerability of abortion patients to privacy breaches.

Additionally, abortion laws can indirectly contribute to negative public records by forcing individuals to resort to unsafe and illegal abortions. In places where abortion is restricted or criminalised, individuals may seek clandestine abortions, which can lead to complications and legal consequences. This can result in negative public records, such as criminal charges and court proceedings, further exacerbating the challenges faced by those in marginalised communities.

In conclusion, abortion laws that deny bodily autonomy can create wide-ranging repercussions, including increased poverty and negative public records. The intersection of abortion, privacy, and the law is complex and often contentious, underscoring the need for comprehensive protections for individuals seeking abortions and the safeguarding of their personal information.

Abortion laws endanger healthcare for those not seeking abortions by criminalising medical treatment for nonviable pregnancies

While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an "on-demand" abortion for fear of liability or prosecution. Arguing that doctors and others use them as loopholes for "on-demand" abortions, lobbyists are working to eliminate exceptions altogether, which would further endanger and traumatise people seeking care for dangerous medical conditions.

In addition, some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies because the drugs can also be used for abortions. In Texas, for instance, pharmacists can be sued for "aiding and abetting" an abortion.

Abortion laws also have a chilling effect, deterring providers from applying restrictions beyond what is required by law due to fear of criminal liability. This, in turn, prevents healthcare providers from providing the best care options for their patients, in line with good medical practice and their professional ethical responsibilities.

Moreover, the criminalisation of abortion has a compounding impact on those who are already marginalised. Health services, in general, are less accessible to people on low incomes, refugees and migrants, LGBTIQ+ people, and racialised and Indigenous people. This means it is more difficult for some people to seek safe services in another country or to access private care.

Abortion laws are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions

The Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling has heightened interest in affirming the right to contraception. While the Court's majority opinion stated that the Dobbs decision does not "cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion", Justice Thomas argued that in future cases, the Court should reconsider precedent that relied on the same principles as Roe v. Wade, including Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark 1965 decision that recognised married people's right to obtain contraceptives.

The prospect of the Court overturning Griswold has prompted some in Congress to introduce federal legislation to protect the right to contraception. Similarly, some state legislators have recently introduced measures to protect the right to obtain contraceptives.

Uncertainty has emerged around people's ability to access certain contraceptive methods, such as IUDs and emergency contraceptive pills, which are often erroneously believed to be abortifacients. If, as indicated by the Supreme Court's majority, the basis for their reasoning hinges on whether "potential life" is involved in a law, the conflation of contraception with abortifacients could be used as reasoning in a future case or in the application of certain laws.

The definitions employed by abortion bans in some states, coupled with the misunderstanding that certain contraceptives are abortifacients, may be used to restrict access to contraceptives. While leading medical organisations define pregnancy as beginning when a fertilised egg is implanted, some abortion bans define pregnancy as beginning at fertilisation and characterise "fetus" and "unborn children" as living humans from fertilisation until birth. This discrepancy in definitions could potentially be used to ban or restrict contraceptive methods that people incorrectly believe can end a pregnancy.

For example, in Missouri, the abortion ban defines "unborn child" as "the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception" and "conceiving" as fertilisation. This ban does not provide a definition for pregnancy, but it establishes personhood for fertilised eggs, which could be interpreted as banning anything that prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg. As a result, when Missouri's abortion ban went into effect, a major hospital system in the state immediately stopped providing Plan B out of fear of prosecution.

The criminalisation of abortion and restrictive laws create a chilling effect, deterring healthcare providers from providing the best care options and deterring women, girls, and pregnant people from seeking post-abortion care for complications due to unsafe abortions or other pregnancy-related issues.

In addition to legal barriers, people seeking abortions face social stigma, intersectional discrimination, and marginalisation, which make it difficult for them to exercise their reproductive rights. Even in countries where abortion is legal, factors like cost, distance to services, social stigma, and religiously reinforced conservative attitudes can hinder access.

Abortion laws disproportionately affect people of colour, who are less likely to be able to travel to access abortions

The issue of abortion laws disproportionately affecting people of colour is compounded by the fact that many people of colour live in states with restrictive abortion laws. For example, the majority of Black Americans live in Southern states that have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. This means that people of colour who are already facing structural barriers to accessing abortions are further hindered by the laws in their state.

The denial of bodily autonomy for people of colour is a significant issue that has been exacerbated by abortion laws. Enslaved Black women were raped and forced to carry children, and their descendants faced involuntary sterilisation throughout the 20th century. Native American, Puerto Rican, and other women of colour have endured similar horrors. The history of reproductive oppression for people of colour is a long and painful one, and abortion laws that restrict access only serve to continue this oppression.

The mental health impacts of abortion restrictions cannot be overlooked, especially for people of colour. Research has shown that women of colour who are denied abortions report higher stress and anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction. This is further exacerbated by the systemic factors that make unplanned pregnancies more likely for people of colour, such as abuse during childhood and intimate partner violence. As a result, women of colour who are denied abortions are at a higher risk of mental health problems.

The issue of abortion laws disproportionately affecting people of colour is a complex one that intersects with issues of race, class, and gender. It is important to address these intersections and work towards creating a more equitable and accessible abortion system that takes into account the unique needs and barriers faced by people of colour.

Abortion laws are a form of gender discrimination against women and girls, and anyone else who can get pregnant

The criminalisation of abortion has a disproportionate impact on marginalised communities, including people on low incomes, refugees, migrants, LGBTI+ people, and racialised and Indigenous people. They often face additional barriers to accessing safe abortion services, such as the cost of travel to another country or state to receive care. Restrictive abortion laws also reinforce social stigma, making it difficult for people to exercise their reproductive rights.

In some countries, abortion is completely criminalised, while others only allow it in specific circumstances, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if there is a severe and fatal injury to the foetus. These narrow exceptions still prevent most people from fully exercising their reproductive rights. The criminalisation of abortion does not reduce the number of abortions but instead makes them unsafe, particularly in developing countries.

Abortion bans also have negative economic consequences, especially for women and girls. Women who are denied abortions are more likely to live in poverty and face economic insecurity. They may also have to give up educational and career opportunities, exacerbating existing gender inequalities. Furthermore, abortion laws often fail to account for the unique needs of LGBTI+ people, who may face additional discrimination and stigma when seeking abortions.

By restricting access to abortion, laws are imposing a "gender-based stereotype" that a woman's primary role is reproductive and maternal. This reinforces gender norms and perpetuates a maternal identity and the expectation of self-sacrifice and subordination. Abortion laws, therefore, contribute to structural discrimination and hinder progress towards gender justice and equality.

Frequently asked questions