SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
43 Years After Roe: We've Come a Long Way, Maybe?
Forty-three years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to abortion, the Supreme Court is again considering another abortion case -- one that will have serious implications for what Roe actually guaranteed.
Jan 22, 2016
Forty-three years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to abortion, the Supreme Court is again considering another abortion case -- one that will have serious implications for what Roe actually guaranteed.
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, is sure to be a watershed moment for abortion rights. The court will consider just how far states can go in blocking the path of a woman who has decided to have an abortion.
Ever since the Roe decision, anti-abortion activists have attempted to roll back women's right to have an abortion. Over the past five years, they have been relentless.
Consider this: In the five years starting in 2011, anti-abortion opponents passed as many restrictions on abortion as in the previous 15 years combined. In 2015 alone, 396 provisions to restrict abortion were introduced -- 57 of those were enacted. Their attempts have come in all forms: the contrived, the contemptuous, and the conspicuously dishonest.
The Contrived
Many of the abortion restrictions were introduced under the guise of protecting women's health. TRAP laws, or targeted regulation of abortion providers, require doctors to have admitting privileges or clinics to meet standards of surgical ambulatory centers.
While these requirements may sound reasonable on their face, of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that they don't make women any safer. In fact, because these standards are often impossible for doctors and clinics to comply with, the medical experts say that they put women at risk by shutting down clinics where they can get a safe and legal abortion.
For example, for a clinic to become an ambulatory surgical center it needs to be retrofitted as a mini-hospital. Compliance can cost millions of dollars. Since most clinics cannot afford the costs they are forced to shut down.
Likewise, requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals results in closed clinics -- not safer clinics. To get admitting privileges at hospitals, doctors often must admit a certain number of patients. But abortion is an incredibly safe procedure, less than 0.3 percent of abortion patients experience a serious complication. At that rate, doctors who provide abortion won't ever meet the hospital's quotas.
The Contemptuous
Meanwhile, states have imposed mandatory delay periods. Even though a woman has already made a firm decision, these laws require her to postpone her abortion until she can make a second visit up to 72 hours before she can have an abortion. Women may have to travel several hours, pay for transportation, get childcare, and miss work, only to have to do it again several days later.
States have even banned certain abortion procedures. North Dakota has attempted to ban abortion after six weeks, when many women don't even know that they are pregnant. Arizona enacted legislation mandating that doctors sign an affidavit that the race or sex of the fetus did not factor in a woman's decision to have an abortion. Arkansas and Arizona passed laws requiring that doctors mislead their patients by telling them that medication abortion can be reversed (something for which there is no medical evidence).
This list of restrictions goes on.
The Conspicuously Dishonest
That these laws have passed in states around the country is no accident. Many of them come from playbooks written by groups like Americans United for Life and National Right to Life, organizations with a mandate to end abortion. Politicians may invoke the mantle of protecting women's health, but they have not hidden their true intentions.
After claiming that the Mississippi admitting privileges law was designed to protect women's health, Gov. Phil Bryant couldn't have been any clearer in his State of the State address, "On this unfortunate anniversary of Roe v. Wade, my goal is to end abortion in Mississippi."
Gov. Rick Perry, who claimed that Texas TRAP laws were intended to protect women's health, addressed an anti-abortion rally, saying, "The ideal world is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure that they are as rare as possible."
Abortion restrictions cannot undo the rights protected in the Constitution outright. But they can make accessing an abortion so difficult as to render the Roe decision moot. If women cannot actually get an abortion, then the right does no service to her.
And indeed this is by design.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 ACLU
Forty-three years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to abortion, the Supreme Court is again considering another abortion case -- one that will have serious implications for what Roe actually guaranteed.
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, is sure to be a watershed moment for abortion rights. The court will consider just how far states can go in blocking the path of a woman who has decided to have an abortion.
Ever since the Roe decision, anti-abortion activists have attempted to roll back women's right to have an abortion. Over the past five years, they have been relentless.
Consider this: In the five years starting in 2011, anti-abortion opponents passed as many restrictions on abortion as in the previous 15 years combined. In 2015 alone, 396 provisions to restrict abortion were introduced -- 57 of those were enacted. Their attempts have come in all forms: the contrived, the contemptuous, and the conspicuously dishonest.
The Contrived
Many of the abortion restrictions were introduced under the guise of protecting women's health. TRAP laws, or targeted regulation of abortion providers, require doctors to have admitting privileges or clinics to meet standards of surgical ambulatory centers.
While these requirements may sound reasonable on their face, of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that they don't make women any safer. In fact, because these standards are often impossible for doctors and clinics to comply with, the medical experts say that they put women at risk by shutting down clinics where they can get a safe and legal abortion.
For example, for a clinic to become an ambulatory surgical center it needs to be retrofitted as a mini-hospital. Compliance can cost millions of dollars. Since most clinics cannot afford the costs they are forced to shut down.
Likewise, requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals results in closed clinics -- not safer clinics. To get admitting privileges at hospitals, doctors often must admit a certain number of patients. But abortion is an incredibly safe procedure, less than 0.3 percent of abortion patients experience a serious complication. At that rate, doctors who provide abortion won't ever meet the hospital's quotas.
The Contemptuous
Meanwhile, states have imposed mandatory delay periods. Even though a woman has already made a firm decision, these laws require her to postpone her abortion until she can make a second visit up to 72 hours before she can have an abortion. Women may have to travel several hours, pay for transportation, get childcare, and miss work, only to have to do it again several days later.
States have even banned certain abortion procedures. North Dakota has attempted to ban abortion after six weeks, when many women don't even know that they are pregnant. Arizona enacted legislation mandating that doctors sign an affidavit that the race or sex of the fetus did not factor in a woman's decision to have an abortion. Arkansas and Arizona passed laws requiring that doctors mislead their patients by telling them that medication abortion can be reversed (something for which there is no medical evidence).
This list of restrictions goes on.
The Conspicuously Dishonest
That these laws have passed in states around the country is no accident. Many of them come from playbooks written by groups like Americans United for Life and National Right to Life, organizations with a mandate to end abortion. Politicians may invoke the mantle of protecting women's health, but they have not hidden their true intentions.
After claiming that the Mississippi admitting privileges law was designed to protect women's health, Gov. Phil Bryant couldn't have been any clearer in his State of the State address, "On this unfortunate anniversary of Roe v. Wade, my goal is to end abortion in Mississippi."
Gov. Rick Perry, who claimed that Texas TRAP laws were intended to protect women's health, addressed an anti-abortion rally, saying, "The ideal world is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure that they are as rare as possible."
Abortion restrictions cannot undo the rights protected in the Constitution outright. But they can make accessing an abortion so difficult as to render the Roe decision moot. If women cannot actually get an abortion, then the right does no service to her.
And indeed this is by design.
Forty-three years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to abortion, the Supreme Court is again considering another abortion case -- one that will have serious implications for what Roe actually guaranteed.
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, is sure to be a watershed moment for abortion rights. The court will consider just how far states can go in blocking the path of a woman who has decided to have an abortion.
Ever since the Roe decision, anti-abortion activists have attempted to roll back women's right to have an abortion. Over the past five years, they have been relentless.
Consider this: In the five years starting in 2011, anti-abortion opponents passed as many restrictions on abortion as in the previous 15 years combined. In 2015 alone, 396 provisions to restrict abortion were introduced -- 57 of those were enacted. Their attempts have come in all forms: the contrived, the contemptuous, and the conspicuously dishonest.
The Contrived
Many of the abortion restrictions were introduced under the guise of protecting women's health. TRAP laws, or targeted regulation of abortion providers, require doctors to have admitting privileges or clinics to meet standards of surgical ambulatory centers.
While these requirements may sound reasonable on their face, of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say that they don't make women any safer. In fact, because these standards are often impossible for doctors and clinics to comply with, the medical experts say that they put women at risk by shutting down clinics where they can get a safe and legal abortion.
For example, for a clinic to become an ambulatory surgical center it needs to be retrofitted as a mini-hospital. Compliance can cost millions of dollars. Since most clinics cannot afford the costs they are forced to shut down.
Likewise, requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals results in closed clinics -- not safer clinics. To get admitting privileges at hospitals, doctors often must admit a certain number of patients. But abortion is an incredibly safe procedure, less than 0.3 percent of abortion patients experience a serious complication. At that rate, doctors who provide abortion won't ever meet the hospital's quotas.
The Contemptuous
Meanwhile, states have imposed mandatory delay periods. Even though a woman has already made a firm decision, these laws require her to postpone her abortion until she can make a second visit up to 72 hours before she can have an abortion. Women may have to travel several hours, pay for transportation, get childcare, and miss work, only to have to do it again several days later.
States have even banned certain abortion procedures. North Dakota has attempted to ban abortion after six weeks, when many women don't even know that they are pregnant. Arizona enacted legislation mandating that doctors sign an affidavit that the race or sex of the fetus did not factor in a woman's decision to have an abortion. Arkansas and Arizona passed laws requiring that doctors mislead their patients by telling them that medication abortion can be reversed (something for which there is no medical evidence).
This list of restrictions goes on.
The Conspicuously Dishonest
That these laws have passed in states around the country is no accident. Many of them come from playbooks written by groups like Americans United for Life and National Right to Life, organizations with a mandate to end abortion. Politicians may invoke the mantle of protecting women's health, but they have not hidden their true intentions.
After claiming that the Mississippi admitting privileges law was designed to protect women's health, Gov. Phil Bryant couldn't have been any clearer in his State of the State address, "On this unfortunate anniversary of Roe v. Wade, my goal is to end abortion in Mississippi."
Gov. Rick Perry, who claimed that Texas TRAP laws were intended to protect women's health, addressed an anti-abortion rally, saying, "The ideal world is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure that they are as rare as possible."
Abortion restrictions cannot undo the rights protected in the Constitution outright. But they can make accessing an abortion so difficult as to render the Roe decision moot. If women cannot actually get an abortion, then the right does no service to her.
And indeed this is by design.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.