More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
I read the draft decision by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and wondered what my ancestors would think of us—the U.S.—at this moment.
I knew immediately what one might think. Her name is Lillie and her story motivates my work as an obstetrician-gynecologist and as an advocate for sexual and reproductive rights globally. She would say that history is repeating itself after learning little from its past.
When states coerce and force women, girls and people with the capacity for pregnancy to remain pregnant against their will, they create human chattel and incubators of them. Today, Texas, Mississippi and other states with ‘trigger’ bans make clear that the essences of chattel bondage and the draft have returned, but only for women, girls and pregnant-capable people.
Overturning Roe v. Wade will unleash devastating rollbacks on abortion across the United States, while also impacting U.S. foreign policy. Already, the Helms Amendment, Siljander Amendment, global gag rule and other restrictions form a collective—and deadly—U.S. foreign policy package that has had disastrous impacts on global health, including an increase in maternal mortality, unsafe abortions and HIV infections, as well as a decline in the overall quality of healthcare.
While the forthcoming decision, and its catastrophic fallout, is not likely to have an immediate global impact, it will undercut efforts to remove these restrictions and embolden the anti-abortion lobby to further instrumentalize U.S. foreign policy to promote its ideology.
Since 1994, 60 countries have liberalized their abortion laws. In contrast, the United States is experiencing profound retrogression on the right to abortion. So too is this occurring in other countries where democratic institutions have eroded, such as Poland and Nicaragua.
A more expansive vision for reproductive autonomy is necessary—and state courts can lead the way. Over the last three decades, high courts in 11 states have recognized that their constitutions protect abortion rights independently from and more strongly than the U.S. Constitution, or have struck down restrictive laws that the Supreme Court has upheld.
Despite the Supreme Court’s expected ruling on the fate of Roe v. Wade, a correct understanding of the Constitution guarantees the legal right to reproductive autonomy: reclaiming the full promise of the 14th Amendment.
Abortion bans force pregnant women to endure the dangerous work of pregnancy, labor and childbirth against their will. Abortion bans place pregnant women seeking abortion under state control and require them to perform involuntary labor. This is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
In 1972, when abortion was still illegal throughout most of the country, 53 well-known U.S. women courageously declared “We Have Had Abortions” in the pages of the preview issue of Ms. magazine. The Washington Post credited the petition with the “start of a powerful strategy in the U.S. abortion rights movement: ending the secrecy that had kept many women out of the fight.”
The next year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. This year, the Supreme Court appears poised to reverse this position. In this perilous time, Ms. is relaunching the petition—with the encouragement and support of some of the original 1972 signers. This year alone, the petition has garnered almost 7,000 signatories.
As we grapple with the magnitude of a potential Roe v. Wade repeal, Women Make Movies is making a selection of films available that shed light on the history of reproductive rights in the U.S. and set forth what’s at stake as abortion access is rolled back.
Laws requiring parental consent for minors requiring abortion care do not help teenagers—they only delay much needed healthcare for vulnerable youth.
States overwhelmingly allow a teenager to independently consent to pregnancy care and medical treatment for her child, and even to give up her child for adoption, without notice to her parents, yet require parental notice or consent for abortion