In his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden emphasizes the need to address reproductive rights in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions
President Joe Biden, in his State of the Union address, highlighted the chaos that has followed the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke reproductive rights from the Constitution. He specifically noted cases such as Latorya Beasley and Kate Cox, whose reproductive plans were jeopardized due to restrictions imposed by the state Supreme Courts in Alabama and Texas respectively. Beasley’s plans for in vitro fertilization were halted as the state’s Supreme Court deemed the embryos as “extrauterine children.” Cox, a Dallas mother, was forced to leave Texas in search of reproductive care after state authorities denied her permission to terminate a nonviable pregnancy.
President Biden expressed his support for Roe v. Wade and acknowledged that state ballot measures in favor of reproductive rights have consistently prevailed. He vowed to restore Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land” if the American people send him a Congress that supports the right to choose.
Reproductive autonomy was never fully addressed by Roe v. Wade
However, President Biden’s endorsement of Roe v. Wade overlooks a crucial flaw in its framework. Since its inception, Roe v. Wade has been subject to intense opposition and erosion. Congress passed measures in 1975 to deny government funding for abortions for low-income individuals, and subsequent state and federal restrictions further chipped away at reproductive rights. Roe was often insufficient in ensuring access to reproductive care for all, as it depended on a person’s status and ZIP code.
Roe v. Wade merely determined the timeline within which the government had a right to intervene in a pregnant person’s autonomy, rather than questioning that government intervention at all. As a result, privacy and personal autonomy were at risk, leading to surveillance and potential criminalization of pregnant individuals.
The story of Brittany Watts highlights the shortcomings of Roe’s protections
Brittany Watts from Ohio serves as a stark example of how Roe v. Wade failed to safeguard reproductive rights. Watts experienced a miscarriage when she was nearly 22 weeks pregnant, but the Catholic hospital she sought help from failed to intervene despite the non-viability of the fetus. Watts later faced the tragic scenario of a nurse calling the police on her after her miscarriage. Watts was wrongly charged with “abuse of a corpse” and vilified for her miscarriage, despite her attempts to seek medical care and her subsequent cleared charges.
Watts’ case exposes the gaps in the legal protections based on Roe’s framework. The judge’s referral to a grand jury, despite the fetus being non-viable, indicates the potential recognition of legal rights for the miscarried fetus, thus undermining the rights of the pregnant individual.
The controversy surrounding fetal viability as a government interest
Roe v. Wade established fetal viability, typically considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy, as the point at which government interest in protecting the fetus supersedes an individual’s rights. However, anti-abortion activists have continuously pushed for an earlier definition of viability due to medical advancements. This shift in the definition of viability translates to increased government intervention in pregnancy, disregarding the individualized and complex nature of each pregnancy.
The experiment conducted by research firm PerryUndem indicates the preference of voters for a clean amendment that excludes government control regarding abortion access after fetal viability. The discrepancy between public opinion and government policy highlights the need for a unified approach to reproductive rights that eliminates government interference.
A holistic approach to reproductive rights
Reproductive rights organizations face a dilemma in deciding the best path forward. While codifying the protections of Roe v. Wade in legislation seems appealing and reminiscent of past successes, it ultimately reintroduces an inadequate framework. The future of reproductive rights lies in offering a more comprehensive and inclusive approach that aligns with the desires of voters who reject government interference in their reproductive lives. The ongoing efforts of organizations such as the National Institute for Reproductive Health’s Learning and Accountability Project demonstrate the need for a forward-thinking approach to fully establish reproductive autonomy for all individuals.
