Right to abortion in Roe v. Wade
Abortion
The American Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade
five decades ago. However, the momentous ruling faces continuous attacks from anti-abortion
activists who hope that the contemporary court’s conservative majority will enforce new
sanctions on the process or overturn Roe ultimately. Besides, anti-abortion activists have
championed a range of cases alongside state legislators currently ongoing in lower or appellate
courts. Notably, any cases might offer a pathway for the Supreme Court to change the federal
abortion law. Conversely, abortion supporters and liberal legislatures are formulating policies to
enlarge abortion rights under state law to preserve access to abortion if the Supreme overturns
the federal law. Despite these controversies, thousands of women died yearly due to unsafe
abortion before the Supreme Court legalized abortion. Approximately 47 percent of maternal
deaths resulted from unlawful abortion. Therefore, women should be allowed to engage in safe
abortion to safeguard the life of the mother. Women's rights to life are similar to everyone's
rights. Although the women's right to choose has been challenged over the years, it is an
inalienable right of all females.
Roe’s reverse would negatively affect the health of numerous women rather than those
engaged in unlawful abortions. Women with severe medical conditions that make pregnancy a
life-threatening experience and who lose the alternative of abortion, will experience medical
danger (Howard and Gibbs 249). Professional institutions will be a force to create management instructions for women diagnosed with these conditions and whose social states prohibit travel
for safe terminations. Besides, they will also have to develop and disseminate guidelines for the
medication of septic abortion, uterine perforation, and other cases of self-induced abortions and
those conducted by nonprofessionals (Howard and Gibbs 249). Other women might perceive
medical abortifacients safer instead of traveling to other states to access local, unlicensed
abortion providers. Therefore, providers must be ready to address the complications of
ineffectively supervised medical abortions. Thus, Roe's repeal will expose women to diverse to
severe challenges that breach their rights to life and quality health care.
Furthermore, the new measures known as TRAP regulations that target abortion
providers are designed to make the cost of accessing abortion too expensive or impossible for
abortion clinics. Abortion rights activists argue that these regulations hinder good providers to
continue offering safe abortion services. Therefore, women have limited access to lawful
abortion (Koch 268). They further claim that TRAP laws are established to appear benevolent,
but they misleading. This is because politicians approve regulations that either directly prohibits
abortion or are back-door prohibitions that seem to safeguard women's health but, in reality, are
regulations established to eliminate women's medical centers and ban abortion (Clark 6). For
instance, almost a third of Texas' abortion providers stopped offering the services since the state
approved stringent abortion clinic regulations. Such strict rules have no medical basis, according
to the American Medical Association (Koch 269). The association argues that Texas' laws do not
serve the health of women but damages women's health by hindering access to abortion
providers and denying women advanced, safe and evidence-based, and approved procedures for
the provision of medical abortion. Therefore, these rules breach women of their right to seek a
proper medical abortion.
Similarly, abortion hindrances strain low-income women, particularly those already
disadvantaged, in various ways, such as inadequate access to the information and services
required to avert unplanned pregnancy. Notably, low-income women face an uneven burden
from unintentional pregnancies (Koch 281). The rates of unplanned pregnancies among low-
income women were five-fold that of women with adequate income. Therefore, low-income
women have a high probability of seeking an abortion since they cannot raise many children.
Moreover, some abortion regulations that strictly hinder abortion coverage for women who
depend on Medicaid for insurance mainly target low-income women (CQ Researcher 7). The
effect of these hindrances is enormous. Blocked from using their coverage, these women are
forced to defer an abortion since it takes a longer time to source funds required for the procedure
(Koch 281). Besides, one out of four women enrolled in Medicaid who could have aborted with
coverage is forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
Abortion laws in Latin America hinder sexual violence victims from accessing legal and
safe abortion. Some nations have maintained a total abortion ban. Others permit medical abortion
based on particular exceptions. However, their narrow analysis of "risks to the life or health" to
imply an imminent physical danger means that girls who are victims of sexual violence seldom
have access to the lawful abortion they might require and are entitled to by the law (Casas 164).
Women and girls who are unprepared to deliver a child conceived through sexual violence are
therefore forced to carry unplanned pregnancies to the end (Meehan 33). Both choices cause
physical, mental, and social health challenges. For instance, when a girl below 14 conceives, her
current and future dreams change instantly and hardly for the better. The girl faces severe health
challenges from pregnancy in an undeveloped body, including death's danger (Casas 164). Her
vulnerability is worsened by already existing exclusion, poverty, violence, and dependency. The right to life with dignity requires nations or states to ensure that girls can achieve their life
objectives, such as completing education, undertaking a practical professional experience, and
having the capacity to participate in their communities socially. Therefore, regulations against
abortion deny girls their rights to attain their life goals and uphold a decent lifestyle after sexual
violence.
Similarly, parental involvement regulations are ineffective, unfair, and can harm
adolescents. The rules can trigger a family disruption that might not happen, and the situation
can be difficult for ladies who reside in a home with sexual, physical, and psychological abuses.
Besides, parental engagement in intimate decisions might cause harm instead of comfort (Clark
5). Teenagers are also economically and emotionally linked to their parents, so forcing them to
inform parents about abortion offers the parents an opportunity to get revenge. These laws are
obligating teenagers to engage parents in an abortion decision, particularly when they are
divorced. The damage sensibly created joint custody arrangements where one parent must decide
concerning the child's medical care (Clark 5). Moreover, parental engagement can defer a girl's
access to medical care. For instance, adolescents, especially teens, cannot identify pregnancy
symptoms. Judicial and legal restrictions further delay their pursuit of assistance and push
abortion into the second trimester, where it is risky and costly. Most teenage abortions conducted
among underage adolescents often occur in the second trimester (Clark 6). However, an abortion
performed within the second trimester often results in death or severe body damage.
Alternatively, parental involvement regulations force teenagers to seek risky and unlawful
abortions.
Furthermore, although most states might criminalize abortions, they are obligated to train
abortion providers. Nevertheless, new hindrances might hinder that training. Residency programs in states that will criminalize abortion will not offer training (Howard and Gibbs 249).
Graduating residents from those training, even they commence practice in countries that support
abortion, will lack vital skills required to conduct procedures safely. These challenges will
negatively impact training for second-trimester medical procedures where severe fetal anomalies
and dangerous maternal illnesses are recognized (Howard and Gibbs 249). These gaps will also
threaten the lives of all pregnant women who seek medical attention or check-ups. Besides, the
lack of skills amongst physicians is dangerous, particularly those who attend to pregnant women.
Therefore, the enactment of diverse abortion regulations in numerous states will interfere with
complete medical care. The residency review committee will face challenges in deploying and
training residents in a country that bans abortion.
Lastly, Roe is a universal law that permits abortion across America. The regulation offers
a constitutional right to all women to engage in abortion to save lives. However, with the
impending reverse of the Roe regulation, numerous states have approved abortion laws (Koff
14). For instance, some have approved banning abortion based on the fetus's gender, race, and
disability. They have also prohibited the medical technique of abortion. Other states have also
approved regulations that only permits the state's portion of Medicaid to support abortion if
needful to save the mother. Other such as New-Mexico and Rhode Island are developing plans to
expand the current abortion rights to accommodate diverse women (Koff 14). States are
obligated to approve regulations, but laws concerning critical issues such as abortion should be
universal. It will be difficult to enact these regulations since they are confusing and focused on
diverse topics.
Conclusion
Roe is the only abortion regulation that respects women's rights. This implies any to
repeal the law exposes women to severe medical challenges. Furthermore, the rules limiting
access to legal abortion services reveal sexual violence victims' severe consequences, such as
carrying the baby to term. Low-income women have a high probability of facing unplanned
pregnancies and might not access quality abortion services. The states' abortion laws breach
women's rights and make them vulnerable. Apart from approving regulations, countries should
also develop strategies for ladies who get pregnant due to rape, sexual violence, and forced
marriages. Caring for these girls is similar to fighting for the infant's life. Therefore, women
should be allowed to exercise their rights to saving lives in life-threatening conditions.
Works Cited
Casas, Ximena. They Are Girls, Not Mothers: The Violence of Forcing Motherhood on Young
Girls in Latin America. Abortion Law Reform, vol. 21, no. 2, 2019, pp. 157-167
Clark, Charles. Teenagers and Abortion. Sage Publishing, 1991, pp. 1-21
Clark, Charles. Abortion Clinic Protests. Sage Publications, 1995, pp. 1-21
CQ Researcher. Abortion: Politicians' Nightmare. Safe Publishing, 1990, pp. 1-14
Koch, Kathy. Abortion Debates. CQ Researcher, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 266-287.
Koff, Stephen. Abortion Controversies. Sage Publishing, 2019, pp. 1-27
Meehan, Mary. Rape & Abortion: A Double Injustice, 2013, pp. 31-39.
Minkoff, Howard, and Ronald Gibbs. Preparing for a post-Roe world. American Journal of
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, pp. 249-250.
