January 22, 1973 - Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

The road to women's reproductive freedom was paved when a pregnant single woman known as "Jane Roe" brought a class action suit questioning the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws.  (Roe was the alias for plaintiff Norma McCorvey; "Wade," the defendant, refers to Henry B. Wade,  District Attorney for Dallas County, Texas.) At that time Texas law prohibited procuring or attempting an abortion, the one exception being cases in which a doctor determined the procedure necessary for saving the mother's life. 

 

At the tender age of 26,  gutsy Texas attorney Sarah Wedding successfully argued "Roe" before nine male Supreme Court justices.  A huge victory.  Ms. Wedding appeared on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show today; one thing that got my attention as she spoke: . . .(paraphrased here) Before Roe, Texas law prohibited a woman from getting contraception without certification that she was within six weeks of marriage!   Beyond belief?  Nope, not at that time.  I  share that flashback for the younger women among us who probably can't fathom such an archaic and humiliating restriction of women's rights.  Believe me, there were restrictions and humiliations a-plenty.   Results of a recent poll indicated that many younger Americans have no clue what Roe v. Wade is.

 

The case was argued before the "big court" December 13, 1971 and the decision was handed down forty years ago today.    This historic decision overturned a Texas interpretation of abortion law and makes abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision said that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, with restrictions later in a pregnancy, based on the right to privacy.

 

There's something worth noting on this significant day—something that requires our vigilance.  Since this landmark decision, those who oppose reproductive rights have taken their fight to dismantle women's rights to state legislatures.  I understand that approximately 750 reproductive restrictions have been enacted by the states.  Of course the Republican majority in Congress introduced a variety of bills to shrink women's reproductive rights, including proposals to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  (Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards reminds us that pregnancy terminations represent only a small percentage— 3% or is it 5%?— of their services which include counseling, birth control,  and cancer screenings using pap smears and mammography.  In fact, Planned Parenthood serves huge numbers of women who can't afford their own private physician.  

 

I'm grateful for courageous women like Sarah Wedding, Norma McCorvey, and the countless sister-friends who worked so hard for reproductive rights for all women— and for those working now to sustain them.  Perhaps we'll join those working to ensure that freedom continues to be a reality.  (Check out Planned Parenthood and NARAL for starters if you want to stay informed and/or become involved.)

 

 Here's some information on efforts to dismantle women's reproductive choices from Pro Choice America/NARAL and a link to their site for more insights:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/key-findings-threats-to-choice.html 

At the federal level, the 112th Congress (2011-2012) took 14 votes on choice: 10 in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate. Thankfully, the pro-choice-controlled Senate and President Barack Obama served as firewalls and blocked many anti-choice measures from advancing, most notably defeating Sen. Roy Blunt's (R-MO) attempt to undermine the nation's new contraceptive-coverage policy, and in the House, thwarting efforts to ban abortion after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia (H.R.3803) and criminalize doctors for the reasons women seek abortion care (H.R.3541).

At the state level, among the 42 anti-choice measures newly enacted in 2012, the most prominent trends were: bans on abortion care after 20 weeks; laws prohibiting abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges; and laws that prohibit state funds from going to Planned Parenthood or to any health center that provides abortion services.


Let's stay tuned to Congress and our State Legislatures to monitor what they're up to; only when we're informed can we make our voices heard and make sure bad bills don't become law.  Those who oppose Roe v. Wade are hard at work; I'll give them credit for determination. It looks like they decided, if they can't get Roe reversed, they'll become metaphorical dentists and yank the teeth out of our current law.  In  fact, they're using an assortment of means to that end at both the state and federal levels.  We can't allow ourselves to be complacent about our freedom.  Ironically, Roe opponents are usually the ones you will hear beating the drum for less government and more personal freedom.  Except when that freedom involves a woman's privacy and the ability to make decisions about her own body.  Amazing.


Soon I'd like to write about the terms "pro life" and "pro choice."  Clearer terminology is imperative.  If we must use labels, let them be accurate!  Most people I know are "pro life" and also "pro choice."  Let me hear your thoughts on this subject.  Thanks!