Introduction
One form of discrimination against women is a return to a traditionalist view of her role in society. It consists of withdrawing women from the professional field, returning them to the household, and making them responsible for producing new citizens for the state. To achieve this goal, officials and representatives of various religious denominations regularly raise the issue of banning abortion.
Access to safe and legal abortion is a human right. Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or the most important human rights conventions. However, protecting human rights does not necessarily need such an explicit language reference.
Sexual and reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, are built on already recognized human rights. Prohibiting abortion through restriction or criminalization may violate the right to life and privacy, the prohibition against discrimination, and the prohibition against degrading treatment and torture. The right to abortion is essential to women’s rights, and its restrictions can cause economic and social problems for the entire nation.
The Right to Abortion as a Woman’s Unalienable Freedom
At first glance, abortion seems to be a purely personal issue, but it is increasingly taking on a political dimension. It is often linked to discussing the country’s demographic problems, one of the most important indicators of state development. At first glance, this approach seems logical: if there is a need to increase the birth rate, abortions should be banned. Women will be forced to give birth, and the demographics will improve.
Nevertheless, this reasoning is primitive, and this way of thinking is irrational. What is possible to achieve in this way is to increase the number of clandestine abortions and the mortality of women and newborns (Kortsmit et al., 2020). The authorities, in my opinion, are making a serious mistake by going down the road of stricter legislation regulating the right to abortion. Whether politicians are guided by ideology, attempting to flirt with certain segments of society, or searching for solutions to demographic problems does not matter. What is crucial is that a woman is deprived of her choice, often condemning her and her child to suffer.
It should be comprehended that abortion is a right, and if it is taken away from a woman, then one can expect restrictions on other human rights. At the same time, each individual must be aware that such bans directly impact an entire nation. It is not yet possible to fully assess the consequences of the repeal, but they will affect society on multiple levels. In ill-fated Texas and Oklahoma, the anti-abortion laws have already gone so far overboard that they have begun to contradict each other.
The U.S. will face internal abortion migration because women will undoubtedly try to obtain medical services in other states (Kortsmit et al., 2020). It is difficult, expensive, and unavailable to everyone, and there will be more patients; therefore, the time frame for obtaining services will also be delayed. States will try to prevent outside help – Kentucky, for example, already wants to demand the extradition from other states of people who supply Kentucky women with medical abortifacients (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2022). Furthermore, two other reasons threaten anti-utopian consequences.
Firstly, the motive for banning abortions is equating the embryo with an individual whose rights should be protected. It leads to banning medical abortion, and such bills exist, even though the FDA approves mifepristone (Frum, 2022). What follows is the idea of banning contraception in principle, which is generally contrary to democratic principles. The second reason is that the idea of equating an embryo with a full-fledged civilian means that there is increased vigilance against pregnant women. Any woman whose pregnancy is terminated risks being under suspicion of taking a human life, and this is not even a futuristic prognosis (Frum, 2022).
The situation in the United States is already critical and undoubtedly requires intervention. The topic is becoming increasingly important because more than 1,200 women in prison in the United States have been sentenced in the last fifteen years after losing their pregnancies (Batha, 2023). Among them are women who gave birth at home, used drugs during pregnancy, simply fell, and even a woman who was shot during an argument.
Increasingly frequent accusations of women’s imperfections are heating the situation. Under the laws of some states, fetuses are already endowed with human rights. On the economy as a whole, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has already warned that abolishing abortion rights would have extremely negative consequences for the economy (Batha, 2023).
Conservatives are likely to work on introducing legislation to ban abortion at the federal level or try to get such a ban through the same Supreme Court. Moreover, one study by the Center for Reproductive Rights (2023) suggests that such restrictions would cost the U.S. $105 billion annually by reducing the number of women in the labor market. Therefore, it is not surprising that the reversal of the Roe decision was met with mass protests.
Moreover, it is important to note that the ban on the right to abortion has racist roots, confirming its irrationality. In the U.S. in the early 19th century, abortion was overlooked: the average American woman gave birth to 7-8 children (Kortsmit et al., 2020). However, fertility gradually began to fall, especially among married white women of the middle and upper classes.
Abortion among this segment of society worried politicians, and there was a certain amount of racism. The states began severely restricting women’s right to abortion while forced sterilization laws came into being. Sterilization was predominantly for non-white women: 3,406 Native American women were sterilized from 1973 to 1976 (Kortsmit et al., 2020).
The fight against abortion is still part of racist politics today. In congratulating President Trump on overturning Roe, Republican Mary Miller said that the Supreme Court had “won a historic victory for white lives.” Such a position has no place in the twenty-first century in a state constantly fighting for equality.
I believe that banning abortion rights is a huge step backward. The U.S. is now one of only four countries globally to roll back reproductive laws since 1994 (Batha, 2023). Fines and imprisonment threaten doctors first, but conservative publications suggest that something should be done about criminal mothers, too.
For example, the Christian news site Stream suggests enforcing psychiatric treatment for women who have had abortions (Freeman, 2022). Although abortion-related laws have been steadily tightened in recent years, the long-standing trend toward reducing them has reversed. American women have become less likely to become pregnant, but have more potential to have abortions. At the same time, the U.S. has one of the worst infant mortality rates among developed countries.
Conclusion
Abortion is one of the most controversial topics in today’s society and is inextricably linked to human rights. In making an already difficult decision, women face the disapproval of others and the constant discussion of prohibition. Women’s lack of abortion rights can lead to economic and demographic problems. Moreover, it is based on racial prejudice and a narrowing of human rights, which should not occur in the twenty-first century. It is impossible to predict what rights will be taken away from people next, and the struggle to take responsibility for one’s own choices is the responsibility of every citizen.
References
Batha, E. (2023). Roe v Wade: Which US states are banning abortion?Context. Web.
Center for Reproductive Rights. (2022). The world’s abortion laws. Web.
Freeman, M. (2022). Human rights. John Wiley & Sons.
Frum, D. (2022). Roe is the new prohibition. The Atlantic. Web.
Kortsmit, K., Jatlaoui, T. C., Mandel, M. G., Reeves, J. A., Oduyebo, T., Petersen, E., & Whiteman, M. K. (2020). Abortion surveillance—United States, 2018. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 69(7), 1.