We're about to choose the people who'll protect or restrict abortion rights
Like most issues in the “culture wars,” our public discussion of abortion rights in this country is bipolar in nature. Debate is dominated by pro-life vs. pro-choice talking points and the complexity of the abortion issue often goes unacknowledged.
One example is reporting on the June Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned protections for legal abortion established in Roe v Wade. It initially focused on the exhilarated “victory” of anti-abortion activists and the stinging “defeat” felt by those who had long advocated for a woman’s right to choose. Missing from that coverage, however, were the concerns of those many Americans “in the middle” who see this issue as more nuanced. They seek ways to reduce the need for abortion procedures but also resist any government interference or ideological dictates in individuals’ personal lives. How will they respond to the Court’s reversal of Roe protections?
As the Supreme Court has now empowered state legislatures to rule on this issue, the upcoming midterm elections are critical. Here in Pennsylvania, as in every other state, voters will choose the representatives and executives who will write and enforce laws that protect or restrict abortion rights. With this in mind, voters will need to look beyond oversimplified labels to understand the complexity of this issue. While anti-abortion activists may now see the “battle” as won, many others involved in reproductive health care across America warn of many negative consequences.
Immediately following the Dobbs announcement, a chorus of groups representing health care providers nationwide voiced their opposition and concern over the implications for their patients. Jack Resneck, Jr., president of the American Medical Association, called the ruling “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room” and “a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship.” The American Association of Colleges of Nursing added that the ruling “imposes significant challenges to delivering safe, equitable, and evidence-based health care” and that the decision “will not prevent abortions, but rather complicate access to health care…”
Proponents of legal protection for abortion services underscore this point that criminalizing the procedure will not substantially reduce the incidence of abortions but rather increase the rate of least-safe abortions. They also point to the disproportionate impact of abortion restrictions on low-income people and people of color. This will only further exacerbate already existing health care inequities. Other expected consequences include an increase in the rate of pregnancy-related mortality, delays or limits in the care provided for pregnancy complications and miscarriages, and a reduction in access to other reproductive services, particularly birth control, as clinics close in states banning abortion. Greater difficulty in obtaining or correctly using contraception will only increase the rate of unintended pregnancies.
The economic and social impacts of the Dobbs decision on the lives of women and families also cannot be ignored. Curran McSwigan, an economics policy advisor at Third Way, writes that the ruling “decreases female labor force participation and educational attainment, reduces career advancement and earning potential, increases financial distress and rates of poverty, worsens health outcomes, and hurts women of color and low-income women the most.” She suggests the negative consequences of restrictions on individual women’s reproductive health care will also negatively impact the future of local, state, and national economies.
Now that abortion access as a constitutional right has been upended, another area of growing concern is the potential for ensuing legal chaos and uncertainty as state legislatures write new abortion rules into law. How will new restrictions be enforced? Will pregnant women and their health care providers be criminalized? How will possible exemptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother be determined and implemented? What will the wide disparity in abortion laws between red states and blue states mean for an already polarized nation?
For decades, pro-life activists have staked the moral high ground by claiming that their position, that life begins at conception and must be defended, is faith-based and unassailable. But not all religious groups or individuals in our country believe that criminalizing abortion is the answer. Could there be other less divisive, more workable policy measures that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the subsequent need for abortions? These might include comprehensive sex education, improved access to contraception, equitable and affordable health care, paid family leave, and quality child care options for low-income families.
In casting ballots this Nov. 8, voters in Pennsylvania will send a message of their own about their preferences and priorities for Pennsylvania and the country. The status of abortion rights should be top of mind as the representatives we elect will write the rules governing such rights moving forward. And yes, much is at stake.
Eileen Walkowiak is an individual partner of The Bucks County Women’s Advocacy Coalition, www.bcwac.org.
This article originally appeared on The Intelligencer: Choosing the people who'll protect or restrict abortion rights
