Both historical Supreme Court decisions and changing political environment have fundamentally affected the abortion laws in the United States. With the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a constitutional right to an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, the availability of reproductive health care was greatly changed all around. The law safeguarded pregnant women’s individuality for practically 50 years. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation ruling in 2022, however the court reversed the earlier ruling in 2022 providing governments the power to impose severe limitations or complete ban. The legislative reform led to uncertainty over reproductive rights and accessibility disparities all around the United States. Legal expert Siegel (2008) claims that these differences affect the most vulnerable most especially those who have conservative views and lead to misunderstandings of rights.
Restrictions on abortion affect areas outside of the courts. If properly performed, an abortion is a common and safe medical procedure. The World Health Organization (2021) states that restrictions often times lead to unsafe abortions. This raises the risk of mother death and other complications. In the US, while some states still allow abortion, regulations and political resistance have made it challenging to obtain an abortion. This breach of rights may have undone decades of public health achievements. From a philosophical standpoint, the rights of the fetus against those of the pregnant woman often focus on the moral argument over abortion. In her important study, Judith Jarvis Thomson (1971) argues that although a fetus has the right to life, that right is not extended to the use of the body of another person without this person’s consent. Thomson based her case on her experience of being forced to collaborate with a talented musician. This case strengthens the belief that a free society depends on physical autonomy.
Moral diversity in the United States has shown the value of freedom of choice in concerns of reproduction. In a democracy with numerous points of view, the legal system has to accept several values instead of implementing an order regarding conduct rooted in belief systems. According to Davis (2022), legislation must let people from a variety of backgrounds make decisions based on their own experiences and thoughts instead of on enforced moral standards. This will allow for the end goal and result of reproductive freedom. Policies that only reflect a single point of view decrease the importance of numerous points of view and go against the values of democracy. The debate on reproductive rights has to include the freedom to choose whether and when to carry a pregnancy, especially within society where religious and cultural points of view are somewhat varied.
Denying access to abortion possesses equally crucial social and financial consequences. According to Foster et al. (2018), women denied abortions are at greater risk to suffer financially, have fewer job opportunities and remain in ongoing poverty. Individuals from minority origins and those with little resources overcome a lot of these obstacles, therefore worsening already existing injustices. According to Jones et al. (2019), local disparities make the problem worse since those living in restrictive areas often have to travel far for care, given that they are able to pay for it. Reproductive autonomy is an obstacle for those with limited resources and a privilege for wealthy individuals. Having access to abortion is essential in society as well as bodily autonomy.
