Land of the Free, Home of the Hanger Abortion

Protesters rally outside of the Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe v. Wade was announced on June 24th (Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash).

The Supreme Court of the United States revoked the right for a woman to make decisions regarding her own body a mere ten days ago. The reactions from citizens nationwide have been rightfully intense and emotional, but the Supreme Court is not likely to hear another abortion case in the foreseeable future.

Article by Emily Barkann, Chief White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - July 4th, 2022. Ten days since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) which overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). On a day when I typically love to celebrate my country and my freedom with my family while enjoying the early summer weather, I can’t help but feel far from free and rather deflated. Outside the White House, a crowd of protestors are holding signs chanting “Legal abortion now!”

“Well, luckily this doesn’t affect you, you won’t ever be in need of an abortion,” an extremely progressive, older family member said to me at the tail end of a family discussion following one of the numerous, publicized threats to Roe since 2016. At the time, I accepted his sentiment, and to a certain degree, I still do. I grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia, with two happily married parents, a gorgeous home, and a private school education. I had more than enough—frequent family vacations, dinners out to nice restaurants, strong family connections with influential people, and basically any birthday or Hanukkah gift I ever asked for. If I ever wanted or want an abortion in a United States of America where women are not granted the constitutional right to this extremely necessary and important medical procedure, I have the resources needed to find a way to get the procedure done. So, in a way, yea, this doesn’t affect me when we consider want versus need. But what happens when want turns into need? What happens if, one day, when I decide I want to have a baby, something happens to my pregnancy that makes it not viable, and carrying the baby to term means my own untimely death? What if I need to be rushed to the hospital in the beginning of my pregnancy and I am forced to choose between my life and the life of my unborn, undeveloped child with no time to flee or come up with alternative options? And of course, this may never happen to me (and I hope and pray that it doesn’t), but the simple, subliminal acknowledgment by my nation’s government that I do not have a say in my own life or death and that my medical care is not only between me and my doctor, but between me, my doctor, and my state is enough to make me want to leave my beloved country. While I am feeling these feelings as a privileged, white, young woman, I cannot imagine what my sisters and brothers who are impoverished, POC, or transgender are feeling nationwide. 

The topic of abortion is hauntingly fascinating to me as I am entering my first year of law school in August. Supreme Court opinions are to me as the Oscars are to a movie buff or the NBA Championship is to a basketball die-hard. They are intricate, and it is sometimes difficult to understand my own feelings toward the majority opinions. I have had some interesting conversations with myself throughout my undergraduate and master’s program courses about the meanings, intentions, and implications of many of the opinions I have read. Namely, the Supreme Court cases surrounding the Commerce Clause (found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution) are quite relevant to the topic of abortion. The Commerce Clause cases typically examine what reasonable limits can be placed on states’ power regarding interstate commerce. For example, in Supreme Court Case Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a farmer grew wheat on his own property to feed his animals. During this time, the United States government had established limits on wheat production based on several factors to regulate prices. Filburn grew more than was allotted and was penalized for his actions. Filburn filed suit, arguing that he had no plans to sell the wheat he grew and therefore it could not be regulated by the government as interstate commerce. Ultimately, he landed his case in front of the Supreme Court. “When Congress regulates an intrastate economic or commercial activity (as in Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta, and Perez), the test the Court uses is whether Congress could have rationally concluded that the regulated activity has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. It is not always clear whether the activity that Congress is regulating is a commercial or a noncommercial activity,” according to Western New England Law School. Without delving too deeply into the topic of the Commerce Clause and the enumerated powers of Congress, I cannot help but wonder how the power for intrastate abortion bans will significantly affect interstate commerce, with countless women and members of the LGBTQIA+ community traveling far and wide to find doctors willing to assist them with necessary medical procedures and healthcare.

Additionally, while I understand that this decision makes no mention of religion in its justification for overturning the federal right to an abortion, I still must wonder what clear level of impotence this places upon women of religions where abortion is not only accepted but encouraged in certain scenarios. It just so happens that in my religion of Judaism, the life of the mother is prioritized above the life of the unborn fetus. In Boynton Beach, Florida, Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor filed a lawsuit claiming that the new Supreme Court ruling violates their religious freedom and the teachings of Judaism that state “abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman,” according to NPR. While the decision does not cite religion as a determining factor of the ruling, abortion as a wedge issue began with mobilizing the Evangelical Christians to align with the Republican Party; religion then quickly became a backing for the argument against abortion. As religious groups emboldened government officials and dedicated members of the Republican Party to bring the issue to light, in front of the Court, time and time again, I cannot help but consider how my own religious freedoms, in addition to my now-governed-body, are infringed upon. Yet another reason for a Jewish woman to feel uncomfortable in my own home country.

As Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his concurring opinion of Dobbs, the Court, “should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” This entire development clearly displays the Court’s weaknesses. Many of the justices who voted to overrule Roe had stated in their confirmation hearings that Roe was undoubtedly precedent. “So a good judge will consider it as [a] precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing. While he is referring to judges across the country rather than Supreme Court Justices, precedent is still central to the decision-making processes of the nine justices. Is this him admitting to the country that he is not a good justice? Are we, as Americans, okay with having a Supreme Court Justice who openly admits through actions that he is not a good justice? This opinion is the first to ever revoke a right from the American people. This decision completely delegitimizes the Court, making it clear that their opinions are partisan.

In the days following the Dobbs opinion, amidst growing public concern over the legitimacy of the Court, Peggy Nienaber, a “prominent Capitol Hill religious leader” was at an evangelical victory party in front of the Supreme Court celebrating the overturning of Roe when she “was caught on a hot mic making a bombshell claim: that she prays with sitting justices inside the high court,” Rolling Stone reported. Nienaber works for the Liberty Counsel, an organization that brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court. This is a major conflict of interest, revealing another perspective not typically seen through confirmation hearings and written opinions—the Court is damaged, and much more than the public may have initially thought.

To conclude, my body is mine. The government can make any choice and pretend like they have a valid claim to controlling my autonomy, but they simply don’t. I will do anything—go to any length in my power—to protect myself and my body. I’m sure many women feel the same way that I do, and quite frankly many will resort back to a hanger if necessary. Prepare yourselves for young American women to die far too early, because a bunch of old white people decided their bodies were no longer theirs. 

This is a difficult topic to discuss because everything that needs to be said has been said. I do not feel that this opinion breaks the unbiased nature of journalism—this is an issue of human rights, not of party, politics, or fair reporting. While I want to look for hope, I feel as though it will be impossible to find. Contraceptives are next, as is same-sex marriage, IVF treatments, same-sex intercourse, and privacy. We’ve reached a point where young women are stockpiling Plan B in their closets, racing to have IUDs implanted before their local laws change, and deleting their period-tracking apps from their phones—and they’re not embarrassed or afraid to make that known because American society, especially men, need to understand the realities of this decision. Silence is the only way to dim the fire of the fight for our rights.