Four Years Since Dobbs v. Jackson: Abortion as a Continued Heated Topic of Debate
Progress is only as linear as the demand for it. In 1973, a woman under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” noticed an injustice in Texas's legal system, a system which is meant to protect her and every other citizen who resides there. Through her perseverance, her case made it to the Supreme Court, and its decision guaranteed women's fundamental right to abortion up until fetal viability. For the first time in U.S. history, the nation's legal system recognized a woman's body as her own, not as a vessel for anyone else's intentions.
Almost half a century later, that decision was overturned through Dobbs v. Jackson, leading to nearly half of U.S. states implementing either total bans or strict limits on abortion. On this day four years ago, the news struck fear, shock, and outrage into the hearts of women and men alike all across the country. Everyone knew exactly what it meant. Roe v. Wade was a monumental case discussed in every school district. It had shown up at least once in every student's life on a test. It was a leap in progress every U.S. history book had to cover, and then suddenly it was gone, nothing but the ghost of its promises left on the lips of our teachers, and with it, the certainty of a nation's understanding that female autonomy is not optional.
With these newfound permissions, multiple Republican-led states have not been satisfied with simply criminalizing abortions, and have insisted on restricting access to the drug mifepristone through telehealth, mail, and pharmacies, which, alongside misoprostol, is how most abortions are obtained in the U.S. Despite the Supreme Court's vote on May 14 to maintain access to this pill after a panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mandated for it to only be available in-person at clinics, the right to a safe abortion through medication is anything but guaranteed while the FDA faces two other major legal battles with the attorneys general of five other states. Missouri v. FDA seeks to implement strict restrictions on the drug, while Florida v. FDA aims to effectively ban it nationwide.
These lawsuits are yet another attempt to systematically exert control over women's bodies, under the guise of concern for the unborn. Restrictions on abortion, like restrictions on divorces, voting, attending school, and holding office, have never been to protect families or the children who could be born from those wombs, but instead to control the women who bear them, to trap them in their own bodies and force them into motherhood, which impacts the rest of their lives.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when recounting a story from earlier in her life of waiting on a pregnancy test after facing sexual assault, notably said, “In that moment, in those three minutes, one clear beaming thought went through as I held that stick, ‘Thank God I have a choice.’” That choice is necessary for every single woman across the country. Whether it's because of health complications, sexual assault, insufficient funds, young age, or simply not wanting it, pregnancy cannot exist as an obligation.
Banning or further restricting mifepristone would once again be a major derailment in our strive towards progress in securing women's rights and bodily autonomy, risking the health and well-being of countless women across the country. Justice, like progress, does not come without demand, and if we do not continue fighting for change, then we will lose what we have already fought so hard to gain. Our bodies are not up for debate.