Suppression of reproductive freedom: Lessons from Prohibition
Prior to 1920, there were few restrictions on the production and consumption of alcohol. But after that, the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States was made illegal until 1933 under the terms of the Eighteenth Amendment. Major support for this amendment was provided by groups with strong religious ties that included many pious Protestants, together with a national grassroots base comprising the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Ironically, most of the ardent supporters of prohibition were located in rural areas, and they were, to a large extent, pitted against a majority of urban dwellers.
But most Americans have always objected to the removal of a widely available right, and this resulted in widespread flouting of the law banning alcohol, especially in urban areas. Finally, under pressure from a national majority, the Twenty-first Amendment permitting alcohol was passed, which then ceded responsibility for alcohol policy to the individual states, and as we now know, this has resulted, with few exceptions, in the widespread national acceptance of alcohol.
From these experiences derived from Prohibition, we have learned two important lessons that should attract the attention of all, especially those who are anti-abortion: 1) Americans are loath to give up established rights, and 2) religious groups, even if large in number, cannot impose their will on a reluctant majority for extended periods.
And now we are presented with an eerily similar circumstance: For a half century, the general population was enjoying freedom of choice through rights granted by the Supreme Court (Roe v Wade), and now this right has been abruptly revoked, and this responsibility was passed on to the individual states. And if history is any guide, the vast majority in most states will press for return to something resembling their previous freedom. In Ohio this movement has already happened, for their voters recently decided, through their state constitution, to protect abortion access. Although this is the only state to codify such statewide abortion rights this year, early plebiscites in six other states mean that this example is quite likely to be followed by many, if not all, the other states.
But this time, there is one important difference between reproductive freedom and Prohibition: Women in general have flipped sides — instead of wielding the negative power of the former Christian Temperance Union, they are now vehemently supporting freedom of choice.
When one considers these obvious factors, there is little doubt about what will happen. Just as there remain a tiny number of “dry” states and counties that continue to prohibit alcohol, we will ultimately witness a minuscule number of reluctant localities that prohibit choice.
Most states, including Florida, having strong pro-choice majorities, will likely return to practical rules governing abortion, probably resembling Roe v Wade, which was sensibly established after much deliberation by the Supreme Court. Reproductive freedom will then become so widespread in this nation that it approximates the general access to alcoholic beverages. Although desirable — but less likely — we may reach a more equitable national standard that resembles Roe v Wade, but this time it will require congressional legislation!
Morton Tavel, MD, of Fort Myers is Clinical Professor Emeritus, Indiana University School of Medicine.
This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Suppression of reproductive freedom: Lessons from Prohibition
