THIRTY-THREE years ago this past Monday, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Because of the changing face of the Supreme Court, there has been rampant speculation that the decision could be overturned. Overturning Roe v. Wade would have foreseeable consequences that many choose to ignore. The morals of the debate have become overkill, yet the realistic consequences have been entirely overlooked. A reversal of the decision will lead to increased disparities in healthcare for minorities and countless dangerous, illegal abortions.
Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban or prevent abortion in the United States. Instead, the abortion issue would be settled on the state level on an individual basis. Some states may choose to completely ban abortions, some may place trimester restrictions on abortion and others would guarantee abortion rights. Further, dangerous, illegal abortions, as history has shown, by pregnant women cannot be stopped.
An Associated Press story in October of 2004 reported the findings of The Center for Reproductive Rights. Within a year of a potential Roe v. Wade overturn, 21 states, including Virginia, were identified as high risk for banning abortion. Nine other states were deemed middle risk. Some of these 30 states have old state laws banning abortion that were overturned by Roe v. Wade or anti-abortion legislatures. These old state laws could become effective immediately following the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Assuming 30 states do ban abortion, 20 states, mainly in the northeast and the West Coast, would still allow abortion in some form. Those with the resources to travel to other states and receive healthcare there would have the ability to have an abortion. Alternatively, people may seek ways to circumvent the law to obtain an abortion. Those without these resources may turn to doctors willing to perform the procedure illegally. The possibilities are endless when people are denied a right they previously had and that they feel they deserve.
Dr. Ben Celniker was one of several doctors to recently write about life before Roe v. Wade for the Voices of Choice Organization. During his time as a physician before Roe v. Wade, he performed illegal abortions. Before abortion was legal, Celniker described his experience as "seeing a lot of women with infection and hemorrhage from having botched-up abortions." Dr. Harry Jonas, also writing for the Voices of Choice Organization, described one case where he saw a woman who tried to self-abort using an instrument of some kind. Instead of an abortion, she perforated her vagina, causing her intestines to be coming out of her vagina along with massive infection, abscesses in her vital organs and eventually death. Instead of preventing abortion from occurring, abortions were attempted by the women themselves or by doctors in unsanitary environments. The numbers remain cloudy, but Henshaw Tietze in Induced Abortion: A World Review estimates as high as 1.2 million abortions a year were induced before abortions were made legal.
Before Roe v. Wade, money was a woman's surest way to an abortion. Doctors who performed abortion illegally charged considerable amounts because of the risk the doctors were taking if caught. Others received an abortion through a loophole in many state laws. If it was deemed by a psychiatric evaluation that the woman in question was in danger of causing damage to herself, an abortion could be completed. Again, this loophole was only available to the wealthy who could afford psychiatric consultations. Those without this wealth were forced into finding other options.
In addition, a study done by Mark Graber of Princeton University shows discrimination against minorities in Pre-Roe v. Wade times. For example in New York City, pregnant white women were five times more likely to have illegal hospital abortions than black women and 26 times more likely to have illegal hospital abortions than pregnant Puerto Rican women. Granted, both minorities have made significant strides since Roe v. Wade that would curb these disparities, but disparities in health care for minorities still exists. Likely, these disparities would increase if abortion is made illegal, but by how much is not clear.
Overall, overturning Roe v. Wade would make illegal, sometimes dangerous abortions prevalent among American women. They would discriminate against lower economic classes and minorities who would not receive equal healthcare. Pro-life protesters would feel cheated by those seeking abortions in other states, pro-choice protesters would be outraged, and desperate, confused women would suffer with infection, sterility, and death. Nobody wins.
Rajesh Jain's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
