The overturning of Roe v. Wade has set a dangerous precedent, stripping women of reproductive rights and blurring the line between law and religious ideology. This decision threatens judicial stability, endangers lives, and undermines the core principles of liberty.
Introduction
The United States of America, once known as the world's superpower, now stands as a failing democracy. The ‘American Dream’ is becoming more of a façade day by day due to the underlying fascist belief in the current administration and the 49.8% of Americans[1] who voted to bring the republican party into office.
In 1973, Roe v Wade[2], the United States Supreme Court passed a historical ruling. The court decided that the decision to have an abortion belongs to the female and not the government. This case made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment[3] of the American Constitution guarantees the right to liberty, and whether to have an abortion or not falls under this amendment. The Court has since reaffirmed that the right to abortion, personal decisions regarding family and relationships, and bodily autonomy fall under essential liberty, which is protected by the amendment. Roe v Wade was a significant step towards the protection of women’s rights. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.[4]
The decision of the court in this case has and will continue to severely impact the reproductive rights of women. The ruling has reversed nearly 50 years of precedent and has forged a dangerous path for the country. This has blurred the lines between state and belief. The US Constitution is a document based on a fundamental rule of separating Church and State. The ‘pro-life’ belief is rooted in Christian fundamentalism. The supporters of this ruling and movement have justified that abortion is ‘morally wrong’. The lawmakers failed to remain unbiased and neutral to uphold a secular governance. What remains absurd is the fact that more men were deciding on the women’s bodily autonomy than the women themselves.
Reversal of the Constitutional Right- Implications
History, from any part of the world, is proof that concentrated authority, discretion, and unchecked power in the hands of men has often led to compromise on the rights of women and other marginalized groups. The court left the states to decide whether abortion should be banned or allowed in their jurisdiction.
The decision taken by the court in Roe v Wade was rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protecting and recognizing women’s right to privacy and body autonomy. By disregarding the precedent set in Roe, the nature of American law and policy has been exposed. Slowly but visibly there has been a change in the authority. Now, the decision of life and death has been given in the hands of certain individuals who have subjected women’s rights to their propaganda and political ideologies.
As history has repeatedly shown, the result of such authority has led to 41 states banning the right to abortion in their jurisdiction. Twelve states have completely banned abortion with no exception to pregnancy by rape or incest.[5] Four other states have enforced a six-week ban where abortion is legal till fetal cardiac activity cannot be detected. In simpler terms, a woman can exercise her right to abortion till the heartbeat is not detected. However, it takes around 6 weeks or more for a woman to realize she is pregnant, making abortion inaccessible in these four states as well. 22 states ban abortion after 18 weeks.
As the decision of overturning Roe and its support was based on morals and values instead of just law, it opens a new avenue for criticism unlike other cases. Every pregnancy entails some kind of risk to the life of the woman.[6] The United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate among wealthy democratic states.[7] Despite that, the Trump administration has recently blocked foreign aid in contraceptive care for women. When contraceptives become inaccessible (to women), they are at a high risk of unintended pregnancies. It is estimated that 8,340 women[8] with unintended pregnancies, who rely on contraceptives, will die due to complications during pregnancies or childbirth. This decision taken by the government puts two lives at risk instead of one.
In a democracy, everyone is equal and has the right to make their own decisions. These are civil and personal liberties. The interpretation of these actions is that the administration has no regard for individual choice, especially women. To sum up, in plain sight, taking away a fundamental right.
The judgment will create a certain legal instability in the system as the court failed to follow the principle of Stare decisis. This doctrine sets a standard of stability and judicial restraint for other courts. The literal translation is “let the decision stand”, meaning courts must adhere and respect the precedent passed before. Specifically in cases where a fundamental right is in question. The legal rationale dictates that the court selectively applied constitutional principles. The Supreme Court has now opened a door for people to challenge other fundamental and civil rights on which the nation was built.
Furthermore, the ban on abortion forces women to keep the child even if it’s a product of incest, rape and even when there is a threat to the mother’s life. This approach keeps the life and right of a fetus above the right and life of a woman or girl child. It is not only disturbing but legally problematic. Bringing a life into the world means being prepared to take care of the child. In a country like the US, where health insurance is causing debt, unemployment is at its peak, the current generation cannot afford to buy a house or a car till late thirties, college debts are never-ending, how will the low-income class population take care of another human being? If the child is born with any disability, that makes it all the more difficult and expensive.
A young girl being forced to deliver a baby who is a product of rape is not only inhumane but ruins the life of both children. The effect on mental health later in life would be extremely harmful. Apart from this, if a woman does not want a child for any other reason, in this day and age, legally she should be able to exercise her right to abortion.
In Texas, a 28-year-old woman died after doctors delayed her abortion for 40 hours.[9] Experts have stated that her death was preventable if the doctors acted swiftly. However, the doctors state that the abortion ban has been written vaguely, which can lead to medical caregivers getting sued or arrested for providing abortion even if there is a 6-week window. In Texas, the doctors cannot intervene unless there is a medical emergency. While the woman was in excruciating pain for 40 hours, the doctors did not act as ‘medical emergency’ is a broad and vague term used in a legal document.
The overturn of Roe has far-reaching consequences that will end with more women dying, children being born into poverty (intentionally due to the government), and the country closing the gap between church and state more and more. The current legal framework is influenced by fundamental religious beliefs and certain individualistic moral values. While exercising religion and morality is one’s right, reflecting it on policies and law isn’t. The challenge is to restore the balance that respects the principle of justice and right to liberty.
Conclusion
The United States of America faces a new legal reality which can lead to state-imposed constraints and restrictions in other areas and fields as well. Under these policies, women and children will now have to endure significant physical and psychological hardship which could have been preventable. A faith-based morality approach instead of a legal one can and will do more harm than good. If at all anyone is benefitting from the current legal climate, it is the current government.
The legislature as a body has the responsibility to shape the nation. Involving personal and political individual beliefs has caused an entire gender to fall under a draconian policy. This can lead to the future of the nation on a dangerous precedent, which can shape the future of civil rights.
This is not just about the abortion ban. The ramification of this reversal destabilizes judicial consistency and puts other marginalized communities at risk. The laws have been developed over time to protect vulnerable people and create a civilized environment with equal opportunity for all. With the abortion ban, other protected rights are at risk as it should not have been that quick and easy to change the interpretation of civil rights. Those who were unaffected before the protection of civil rights were men, and those unaffected now are again men. Those in control pulling the strings of reproductive rights are also men.
This chilling effect on women and health care providers has created a complex scenario. In light of these changes, it is imperative to critically assess the foundational values of the country. The shift from jurisprudence to personal ideologies is not only dangerous but is an indication and reminder of how states end up with authoritarian governments. Ultimately, the challenge lies in restoring the rights of all while upholding the principles of justice and liberty.
[1] Lindsay JM, ‘The 2024 Election by the Numbers’ (Council on Foreign Relations, 18 December 2024) https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers.
[2] Center for Reproductive Rights, ‘State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy’ https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/.
[3] United States Constitution, Amendment XIV https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/.
[4] Delaney N, ‘Roe v. Wade Has Been Overturned. What Does That Mean for America?’ (Harvard Kennedy School, 28 June 2022) https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/fairness-justice/roe-v-wade-has-been-overturned-what-does-mean.
[5] Guttmacher Institute, ‘State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy’ https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans.
[6] Jackson Women’s Health Organization v Dobbs, Brief for Respondents, No 19-1392 (US Supreme Court, Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/192267/20210913143126849_19-1392bs.pdf.
[7] Center for Reproductive Rights, ‘Legal Analysis: What Dobbs Got Wrong’ (15 March 2023) https://reproductiverights.org/what-dobbs-got-wrong/.
[8] Guttmacher Institute, ‘Family Planning Impact of the Trump Foreign Assistance Freeze’ (January 2025) https://www.guttmacher.org/2025/01/family-planning-impact-trump-foreign-assistance-freeze.
[9] The Guardian, 'Texas Woman Died After Being Denied Miscarriage Care Due to Abortion Ban, Report Finds' (30 October 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/30/texas-woman-death-abortion-ban-miscarriage.
