Recently a wave of new abortion bills have swept across the country. While some states, such as Vermont, Wisconsin, and Michigan, are attempting to protect a woman’s right to choose, others such as Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama have passed bills with the express purpose of overturning the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade. This article will explore paternalism and the history of women’s rights in America, examine the new legislation passed in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, and demonstrate the dangers such legislation poses to women’s rights.
Paternalism is philosophical theory concerning power dynamics between two groups. According to paternalistic theories, one group will be viewed as the stronger and begin to impose its will on the second, under the guise that it is in the second party’s best interest. The clearest example of this is the relationship between a government and its citizens. When a government needs to implement a policy that is likely to be unpopular with the general population, they defend it by claiming it is in the best interest of the people. During the 1700’s a common justification for slavery was based on a paternalistic theory. Slave owners argued that the slaves they forced to work were unable to govern themselves and slavery was a way of imposing much needed order. A similar explanation was given for denying African Americans and women the right to vote. What’s commonly referred to as the “Patriarchy” believed they weren’t capable of making the proper decision.
Power dynamics, both political and social, in the United States are heavily paternalistic. This system of paternalism, in regards to reproductive rights, faced its first major opposition in 1965. The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut is the foundation that all cases regarding contraceptives and abortions stand upon today. The case established there was a Constitutional right to privacy and that contraceptives could not be criminalized because it infringed on an individual’s right to make a personal decision about their about their own life. Six years later in 1971, United States v. Vuitch was the first case brought before the Supreme Court regarding abortion. While this case failed to legalize abortion, it upheld that a doctor could take both physical and mental health into account when deciding to perform an abortion and furthermore that the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the physician to prove innocence.
Finally, two years later in 1973 a landmark ruling was made in Roe v. Wade. In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court ruled abortion was a woman’s constitutional right under the fourteenth amendment, following the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut. Under the original ruling a woman could obtain an abortion at any point during the first trimester. During the second trimester the government was able to regulate abortions by stating they had to be in the mother’s best interest. In the third trimester, if the fetus was considered viable for life, a woman could only get an abortion if the birth of the child threatened the mother’s life.
Until 1989 abortion Roe v. Wade never faced a serious threat. However, the Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services was about to change that. The Reproductive Health Services of Missouri instituted a law that mandated physicians to assess the viability of the fetus after twenty weeks. The law was an attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade by bringing the viability of the fetus from the third trimester into the second, thereby requiring the abortion to be medically necessary. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law, it was not allowed to overturn the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.
Unfortunately, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ushered in a spree of anti-abortion sentiment. In 1991 Rust v. Sullivan upheld the Reagan administration’s “gag rule”. While the rule was shortly overturned by President Clinton by executive order in 1993, it had prohibited clinics from providing women seeking an abortion with any information aside from prenatal care. In 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Act. Congress used the act to outlaw a surgical method of abortion after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, even if it was the safest method for the mother.
Now, in attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade state legislatures have passed abortion bills that would make an abortion illegal if a heartbeat could be detected. Although the Alabama law has yet to take effect, it looks to be the strictest in the nation. It permits and abortion if and only if the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy. There are no clauses in the bill to protect a women who are pregnant as the result of rape or incest. Similar laws in various states have clauses that allow for protection in the case of rape or incest, but have other caveats attached. The best example is in Indiana. While they have not yet taken on the challenge of criminalizing abortion, they have deterred it by baning the two safest and most often used methods of abortions. Furthermore, the state’s legislature has given doctors the right to choose whether or not they wish to perform an abortion. This is particularly harmful to a woman’s ability to exercise her rights by adding another loop she must jump through. Arkansas and Tennessee have also adopted what’s being called a trigger law. Essentially, in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned the trigger law takes effect and automatically criminalizes abortion.
This is where paternalism comes back into play. A much smaller group of powerful individuals, mostly elderly Christian white men, are taking steps to impress their will upon the larger population. The paternalistic interventions of conservative and backwards abortion bills are not only an attempt to deny women their choice, but to deny them their voice as well. In the recent past, the control of a woman’s body belonged to husbands, parents, judges, doctors, legislators and nearly everyone except for the women themself.
While pro-life sentiments are portrayed as an outcry against murder, and I don’t deny some truly hold this belief, the reasoning is based on age old ideologies of what a woman ought to be. Laws limiting a woman’s right to choose are reinforcing the idea of a woman as a nothing more than a mother. The silent caregiver whose purpose is to breed and raise the next generation and nothing else. This is the message sent by patriarchal and paternalistic societies. These abominations kindly referred to as “laws” are nothing more than a last ditch effort of bigotry to claw its way back into society. Laws such as the ones passed in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Indianna, Missouri, Utah, North Dakota, and Texas are a threat to more than a woman’s right to an abortion. It threatens her position in the workplace, the community, the government, and equal society.
What I find to be most ironic is that the party against government intervention is attempting to intervene in the most intimate and personal decision a woman will ever have to make. The party defending the right to life is the most ardent supporter the death penalty. The same party that says we can’t regulate gun ownership because it infringes on personal rights is not only accepting, but advocating for laws that restrict a woman’s autonomy over her own body and life. However, not all members of the Republican party are advocating for restricted abortion, just the ones who find it amusing to objectify women as nothing more than sexual objects and grab them by the pussy.
In Vermont, Republican Governor Phil Scott is leading the charge for reason and respect. Vermont is working to change amend its state constitution to protect a woman’s right to choose. Even if Roe v. Wade is repealed, they are in the process of taking proactive measures to ensure rights are maintained. Similar acts are being taken Michigan and Wisconsin, although these are Democratic governors promising to veto anti-choice legislation.
Overall, it seems that we’re slipping back into the past of what life would have been life around 65 years ago. Paternalistic attitudes in government have led to higher tensions among most minority groups and are supporting a culture of oppression. Women had to fight a hard battle to get to where they are today, which is still far from being equal to men. Women are underrepresented in both the workplace and the government. While I feel confident in saying most who support these laws are not doing so with the intent of objectifying and demeaning women, they are doing so all the same. It is an act of supreme ignorance, those who are making the decision to limit abortion rights would never be in the position of having to decide whether or not to have one. Selfish political motivations have overridden their sense of common decency and empathy. We have the moral imperative to respect a woman’s choice in this matter. We can no more justify forcing a woman to have an abortion than we could justify denying her the choice.
Sources:
- Allen, Amy, “Feminist Perspectives on Power”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/feminist-power/>.
- Campisi, Jessica, et al. “All the States Taking up New Abortion Laws in 2019.” The Hill, 27 May 2019, thehill.com/policy/healthcare/445460-states-passing-and-considering-new-abortion-laws-in-2019.
- Dworkin, Gerald, “Paternalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/paternalism/>.
- Editors, History.com. “Roe v. Wade.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Mar. 2018, www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade.
- New York Times Archives. “Two Abortion Cases.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2006, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/scotuscases_ABORTION.html.
- Taylor, Kate, and Julie Turkewitz. “As Some States Limit Abortion, Others Move to Protect Abortion Rights.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/vermont-abortion-bill-h57.html.
- “Timeline of Important Reproductive Freedom Cases Decided by the Supreme Court.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/other/timeline-important-reproductive-freedom-cases-decided-supreme-court.