During the past few weeks, abortion controversy has deeply polarized Americans more than ever. With fierce media coverage of Texas’s abortion ban and refreshed political and legal debates surrounding abortion from pro-choice to pro-life, it’s no wonder you are confused about what they all mean for the future of abortion rights in the U.S. It all depends on the survival of Roe v Wade. SCOTUS has already dealt a crippling blow to Roe when it refused to unblock Texas's new anti abortion law in early September. Now, there comes the burning question on everyone's mind. Should we brace ourselves for a future without Roe?
Roe v Wade, is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in 1973 which has been part of America's legal heritage for nearly fifty years. Roe is also undoubtedly the most controversial ruling in the twentieth century. It is the settled constitutional law on abortion rights in the US. Accordingly, a state may not prohibit a woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before a fetus is viable. As Texas's Senate Bill 8 (S.B.8) went into effect on September 1 , 2021, prohibiting nearly all pre-viability abortions after six weeks of pregnancy (that is before many women even get to know that they are pregnant), it has frustrated and outraged many pro-choice liberals in Texas and beyond. Texas's new law is the toughest and broadest restrictive anti-abortion law to date in the US. With this near total-ban on abortion, it is predicted 85 %-90% of abortions previously performed in Texas would be unlawful under the new law, thus making abortion after six weeks functionally illegal in Texas. To comply with the new law, many abortion clinics in Texas have already stopped offering abortion procedures to women if cardiac activity of fetus is detected.
Here, we take an up-close look at the main legal provisions of S.B. 8, its constitutionality and the judicial precedent set by Roe v Wade. We would also examine shadow docket ruling in Whole Woman's Health v Austin Reeve Jackson, and address the looming question whether Roe v Wade will be overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization scheduled to be heard in 2022.
Americans have a constitutional right to abortion. Where does it come from?
Almost five decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in its controversial ruling in Roe v Wade established a constitutional right to pre-viability abortion. In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Se.Pa v Casey reaffirmed Roe's position. The core legal principle in Roe v Wade is that a woman essentially has a right to exercise choice over whether to terminate her pregnancy before viability, without undue interference from the state. A fetus is considered to be viable after the first two trimesters of pregnancy. States cannot impose prohibitions or undue restrictions on women's right to elect the abortion procedure before viability.
Any restrictive action by the state would be in contravention of the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment which is the source to an array of constitutional rights guaranteed at the federal level which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution; that includes the right to abortion. Due process clause in Fourteenth amendment guarantees certain unlisted liberties intrinsic to life which cannot be restricted unless compelling reasons exist justifying restrictions (which means such fundamental rights are not absolute). Roe based its decision on the legal argument that right to privacy is protected by the due process clause to the Fourteenth amendment. The due process clause provides that no states shall deprive any person of life, liberty without due process of law. The broader scope of the constitutional right of personal privacy would necessarily encompass women's right to terminate pregnancy before viability.
In its judgement the Supreme Court opined that the term 'person' in due process clause does not include the unborn. As such the right to life of the unborn lacks federal constitutional protection. Therefore the state interests in protecting the life of fetus was held to be limited, due to lack of consensus as to when human life actually begins in mother's womb.
It was also found that state has no compelling or legitimate interest in regulating abortions during the first-trimester and a physician has discretion to proceed with abortion upon his medical judgement. However, state may impose regulations reasonably necessary for preservation and protection of maternal health, since abortions during the second trimester compared to first-trimester poses increased danger to women. Women's right to abortion during second trimester cannot be impeded unless for maternal health interests. Beyond the second trimester, the state is free to regulate abortions as it may desire. Roe v Wade considers the point of viability as the expiration of second trimester which acts as the dividing line beyond which state can even go to extremes of proscribing post-viability abortions for promoting state interests to protect fetal life.
Why S.B. 8 is a full ban on abortion?
Texas S.B. 8 bans nearly all abortions, even months before a fetus is viable. That is in open defiance to Roe, the settled constitutional law on the subject of abortion. It sits at the extreme end of pro-life stance and has in effect banned all pre-viability abortions after six weeks. It also prohibits abortions in cases involving unviable fetus, fetal defects and ectopic pregnancies. To add fuel to fire, the new law does not even make any exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape, incest and sexual abuse.
The bill does not sue the women who seek abortions at an abortion clinic, but it rather sues abortion providers and those who aid and abet women seeking abortion. It takes only little imagination to perceive the main objective of the bill; that is to sue those who run abortion clinics and facilitate abortions, and to thereby prevent abortion procedures. Thus, it indirectly makes it impossible for women to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to have an abortion, even for morally justifiable reasons such as pregnancy resulting from rape, incest or sexual abuse. The S.B 8's all-out ban on abortion has also left federal government personnel and grantees unable to provide access to and facilitate abortions to persons in their custody and care even for justifiable cases of rape, incest and sexual abuse, and they are at the risk of facing civil liabilities and penalties if they facilitate such abortions.
S.B. 8 makes its one and only exception, that is for medical emergencies.
An exception has been made for 'medical emergencies' by S.B.8. However its scope remains vague, since the term is undefined by the section 171.205 of the Texas Health and Safety Code as amended by S.B.8. The ban on abortion shall not affect if a physician believes a medical emergency exists. Normally, presence of danger to woman would fall under an emergency condition. However, the vagueness of the term can reasonably be subjected to wider interpretation. Thus, determining a medical emergency has been left to the sole discretion of physicians. However these physicians have to be confident of their medical judgement as would help them later convince their medial judgement to the courts. In terms of section 171.008, a written document is required to be issued by physician who carries out abortion certifying that abortion is necessary on the basis of the specified medical emergency.
Deputizing private individuals as state agencies.
The first of its kind novel legal approach designed by Section 171.207 (a) of Texas Health and Safety Code as amended by S.B. 8 deputizes ordinary private citizens to act as state actors in the enforcement of S.B 8. A legal standing has been created for individual citizens to sue fellow citizens who provide, aid or abet abortions. Accordingly, any person other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in Texas can bring a civil action under SB 8 (The term 'any person' includes non-Texans as well). The new legal regime under S.B. 8 is exclusively enforced by private citizens. State agents are prohibited from enforcing the new law. Thus it has created a private right of action authorizing anti-choice bounty hunters to police abortion providers. This is literally turning neighbor against neighbor. No connection or injury whatsoever resulting from an abortion procedure needs to be established before a private citizen becomes entitled to sue any abortion provider. A successful complainant is entitled to obtain an injunction against defendants to prevent the latter from proceeding with an abortion.
Statutory damages amounting to a minimum of $10000 is awarded to a complainant as bounty for each abortion the defendant has performed, aided or abetted. That is in addition to legal fees. However as no upper limit has been set, a generous pro-life judge could award even millions of dollars as bounty. Therefore this new law is all about giving financial or economic incentives to pro-life bounty hunters to prevent abortions. This is just a little different from Pilipino President Dutarte's war on drugs. The only difference is no guns are involved. Interestingly S.B. 8 is silent as to any possible reimbursement of legal fees in case where a lawsuit brought by a complainant is unsuccessful.
S.B. 8 has purposefully broken the regular procedural norms and has insulated state executive machinery from any responsibility of enforcing the new law. This very diabolical procedural aspect of the statute makes it harder to challenge it in court. It has authorized ordinary citizens to serve as bounty hunters. By taking the state actors out of the entire picture and placing the law on the hands of the private citizen, the new law has designed a private enforcement mechanism in such a way as to enable it to dodge ordinary constitutional scrutiny. Usually pre-enforcement challenges to statutes which establish private rights of action are practically impossible, due to the difficulty of and uncertainty associated with identifying litigants who will enforce private rights of action until they actually bring an action.
Why S.B. 8 is by any means unconstitutional?
The 'supremacy clause' and 'pre-emption' mandate the U.S. Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. Therefore any state law to the contrary is invalid. Going by the doctrine of 'intergovernmental immunity', it is manifestly clear that states have no power to impose laws which impede constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens at the federal level. Thus S.B. 8 is a direct challenge to the supremacy of the constitution and federal government.
According to Roe, ban on abortions before 6 months cannot survive judicial review. Therefore the ban on abortions after six weeks imposed by S.B. 8 violates the due process clause in Fourteenth amendment. It runs afoul of the precedent set by Roe. Thus depriving women of their constitutional right to obtain pre-viability abortions is clearly unconstitutional. Therefore S.B. 8 is invalid under supremacy clause and Fourteenth amendment. However unconstitutional the new law could be, the rightward thinking of the majority of Supreme Court Justices could force them to hide their head in sand over the question of constitutionality.
What did the Supreme Court in its shadow docket ruling in Whole Woman's Health v Austin Reeve Jackson say?
In this case twenty abortion providers sought an injunctive relief blocking the execution of S.B. 8. The Supreme Court in its unsigned opinion declined to stay the execution of the new law. The court however did not look into any substantive claim in the petition, despite S.B. 8 could still be unconstitutional. However the Supreme Court in its 5-4 vote consisting of Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett in majority expressed that S.B.8 might or might not be unconstitutional. The case was also not decided on its merits, but came down as part of Supreme Court's highly controversial shadow docket procedure. The court did not even disclose its reasoning, and gave only very little explanation for its decision on S.B.8.
According to the majority opinion, what prevented the Supreme Court from staying the execution of S.B. 8 is its uniquely designed enforcement scheme by private citizens. Thus the main reason for not blocking the new law was largely due to the absence of a clear precedent to block a law which creates only civil liability enforced by private citizens. Ordinarily, courts block execution of criminal laws by issuing a stay order to the Attorney General to stop enforcement of those laws. This practice of courts is based on the idea propounded by Ex Parte Young(1908) that private parties desirous of blocking a state law can sue state officials in charge of enforcing that law. Thus Texas's novel enforcement regime has been designed shrewdly so as to evade judicial review.
However the three liberal justices and the Chief Justice took the view that S.B. 8 should have been blocked anyway. Brayer J. dissented to the majority opinion by citing Marbury v Madison and stated that Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutional interpretation has power to rule on any state law's constitutionality regardless of who is enforcing such law. In his view, there is supposed to be a remedy to defend every right. Therefore Supreme Court should have looked for a remedy when right to obtain an abortion is unduly burdened by the ban proposed in S.B. 8. Sonia Sotomayor J. vehemently opposed the majority opinion and emphasized that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedents on abortion. It was pointed out that it is not right for the judiciary to bury their heads in the sand to reconcile with mere procedural misgivings. She described S.B.8 as a breathtaking act of defiance by Texas.
It is obvious that the majority opinion in this case has put the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court at stake by attempting to gut it own fifty-year old precedent. Their opinion is misled by trivial procedural concerns over S.B. 8 purposefully set by Texas legislature to frustrate judicial review. This is not a pretty sight for rule of law in the US.
Heard of shadow docket?
The Supreme Court's ruling came as part of shadow docket procedure, not under ordinary docket. With Whole Woman's Health v Jackson ruling, shadow docket is thrusted on to spotlight. Shadow docket is an expedited and truncated court process where emergency petitions which usually seek injunctions or stays of execution are taken. This procedure has been used with much greater frequency since the beginning of the Trump administration and has been on the rise ever since, inviting public scrutiny.
This emergency appeal procedure does not go through usual certiorari process. It is devoid of regular court procedure and characterized by absence of full briefings and oral arguments. Judgements delivered in shadow docket are not signed by judges. Critiques opine that due to above reasons, shadow docket undermines the elements of rule of law and is very challenging in a democracy due to lack of transparency in its procedure. Keyan J. also criticized shadow docket in his dissenting opinion in Whole Woman's Health v Jackson.
However ruling in Whole Woman's Health v Jackson does not earn the recognition as a judicial precedent. Generally, precedential decisions must be ones which are well-reasoned and legally explained. Mere unsigned opinions do not have the force of precedents. Therefore it is highly unlikely and legally impossible that a shadow docket ruling would be considered a precedent able to gut fully-deliberated judgement like Roe v Wade.
A fetal heartthrob, all that matters under Texas's S.B.8.
S.B. 8 coined by many as Texas Heartbeat Act bans abortions if cardiac activity is detected in the fetus. If no cardiac activity can be detected, S.B. 8 does not apply and it is legally safe to carry out an abortion procedure. As a general rule under S.B. 8, it is essential for physicians to detect for heartbeat of embryo before proceeding with an abortion procedure. Abortion of an unborn child with a fetal heartbeat knowingly or unknowingly is an offence under section 171.204 of Texas Health and Safety Code as amended by the new S.B 8.
Section 171.201 defines fetal heartbeat as cardiac activity or the steady or repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac. But practically detecting a fetal heartbeat can never be a possibility during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, mainly because a heart is not developed within just a matter of six weeks. All what could be detected during first 6 weeks is the electrical activity of development of embryo tissues.
Given an embryo is not viable within the first 6 weeks, no woman would ever know she is pregnant unless she takes a pregnancy test earlier. Thus women are inevitably forced to forgo an abortion before six weeks' time bar. A fetus is generally not considered to be viable until about 24 weeks in to the pregnancy, and a viable fetus must be able to survive outside the womb with or without artificial support as decided in Colautti v Franklin. Moreover, section 171.203 (a) enacts that standard medical practice which may be used to detect fetal heartbeat, includes methods of detecting heartbeat appropriate for estimated gestational age of the fetus, the condition of the woman and her pregnancy. Thus a physician is required to employ a test which he reasonably believes to be consistent with standard medical practice. He cannot use unreliable methods of detection.
Women who seek abortion cannot be sued, but abortion providers, aiders and abettors can be.
S.B 8 does not make abortion a crime, but establishes only civil liability. However women on whom the abortion is performed or induced to take the procedure have been exempted from being sued. This is in terms of section 171.206. Nevertheless the new law without criminalizing abortion, has effectively prevented abortion clinics from offering their services to abortion-seeking women.
Section 171.208 (a) imposes only civil liability for violating the ban on abortion or aiding or abetting those violations. Any person who performs or induces an abortion, or who knowingly aids and abet the performance or inducement of an abortion including paying for or reimbursing through insurance or otherwise even without the knowledge that an abortion would be performed or induced with that money, can be sued under the new law.
Terms 'aid and abet' are not defined in S.B. 8. However this includes physicians, their assistants, employees, loved ones and friends who lend support to obtain an abortion and insurers. Even mere passing of a contact number of an abortion provider can be liable to be sued under the new law. Further, taxi drivers taking a woman to an abortion clinic can be sued, but there are serious concerns whether such litigation would succeed. However Uber and Lyft have assured its drivers of coverage of legal costs by the company, in case they are sued under S.B. 8. Knowledge of an abortion procedure is irrelevant in this context. And mere intention to aid or abet the abortion procedure without even actually taking a positive action is sufficient to make one liable under S.B. 8.
According to S.B. 8, for someone to be sued under S.B. 8, the abortion procedure must take place within the territorial limits of Texas. For instance someone aiding an abortion procedure to be performed elsewhere in other states is not liable to be sued under S.B. 8.
Limited defenses available to a defendant under S.B. 8.
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he did not violate the provisions of S.B 8. That is on a preponderance of evidence. Interestingly, plaintiff complainant has no burden to discharge. A defendant sued under S.B. 8 can show no banned abortion occurred and that the abortion took place before expiration of six weeks into the pregnancy.
However defenses such as ignorance, mistake of law, belief that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional, reliance on judgements overruled are not at the disposal of a defendant under S.B. 8. In terms of section 171.209, a defendant cannot assert the rights of women seeking abortion as a defense to the civil liability under the law. However, in terms of section 171.209 (b), an affirmative defense is available to a limited class of defendants if they can show an award of relief in favor of plaintiff would impose undue burden on a woman/ women seeking abortion. It is an affirmative defense when the defendant believes that the abortion provider would comply or had complied after conducting reasonable investigation. However this limited defense is in breach of a line of Supreme Court judgements which prohibits states from regulating pre-viability abortions, unless such regulations pass the undue-burden test. The undue-burden test has been distorted under the new S.B. 8 by requiring state courts in enforcement actions under S.B. 8 to weigh undue burden as part of assessing an affirmative defense taken by defendants.
Texas with a history of foiled attempts to restrict abortion.
Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt revolved around House Bill 2(H.B. 2) passed by Texas Legislature in 2013 which required physicians carrying abortions to meet hospital-like facility standards and to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic, which if upheld would have drastically reduced the number of abortion clinics available for 5.4 million women in Texas of reproductive age, by forcing closure of many clinics difficult to meet those standards. This could mean reduced access for abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote held the law to be unconstitutional and an undue burden on women's constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling was based on the substantial burden test which simply weighs the legitimacy and sufficiency of medical benefits intended by the law over the burden imposed on right to have an abortion. This additional layer of safety requirements did not advance the protections already available during abortion procedures, and did not reduce the medical hazards associated with abortions. It only reduced the access to abortions and served only to drop the number of abortions clinics available. Ruth Bader Ginsburg J. in her judgement opined that any restriction on access to abortions by making it more difficult to obtain the procedure cannot be allowed to pass the tests of judicial review, in the name of safety.
The undue burden standard and where does it come from?
In determining the constitutionality of abortion laws, the courts employ the test of undue burden to weigh the proportionality of intended health benefits of such law against burdens exerted on the right of women to obtain an abortion. Here, the question is whether a certain regulation places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion?. This test has been crafted by Planned Parenthood v Casey which held a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness before obtaining an abortion to be unconstitutional. Casey's new standard of undue burden replaced the previous test of strict scrutiny required by Roe v Wade. Under the standard of strict scrutiny the court holds an abortion law to be valid on proof of the necessity of such law to achieve compelling state interests. However Casey standard examines whether abortion laws place substantial obstacles for women to exercise their right to obtain an abortion.
California emerging as a favorite abortion destination to many.
S.B 8 compels Texan women seeking abortion to travel out of Texas to other states to get their abortions done elsewhere. California is among the most favorite abortion destinations for these Texan women. California is by the far the most liberal state in U.S. when it comes to abortion. Its state constitution incorporates a right to abortion. As Texas's ban on abortion under S.B. 8 went into effect, Californian recall elections has also become more intensified with abortion rights taking the center stage in political debates. The incumbent governor Newsome warns of a possible ban on abortion by his GOP counterpart Larry Elder if the latter is elected as the Governor of California in recall elections. But looking from the stats, electing a GOP candidate as Governor in California is never a possibility. There are Democrats nearly twice as Republicans in California. Therefore Newsom has a greater chance of getting re-elected to the position of Governor. Thus a ban on abortion in California is highly unlikely. Even if Roe v Wade is overturned by a conservative majority in the Supreme Court in a future case, Californians will still freely exercise their right to abortion, because their state constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
What future might hold for Roe v Wade?
Whole Woman's Health v Jackson dealt a harsh blow to Roe, when the Supreme Court allowed execution of S.B. 8 in its ruling on September 1, 2021. Now, there is a near-total ban on abortions in effect in Texas. That is in direct defiance to precedent set by Roe. But Whole Woman's Health v Jackson did not affect or overturn Roe. Nevertheless, it could be a strong signal where Supreme Court would be heading in future cases dealing with abortion. Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court late next summer. Dobbs case is where the constitutionality of Mississippi's Gestational Act 2018 which proposes to ban abortions after 15 weeks will be looked into by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would consider the question of constitutionality of all pre-viability abortions, and the suitability of undue burden test in weighing abortion regulations, and whether abortion providers have third-party standing to file cases on behalf of women seeking abortion.
There are three possible outcomes in Dobbs. The Supreme Court can decree Mississippi Law to be unconstitutional while precedent set by Roe v Wade will be upheld. Secondly Roe v Wade will prevail unharmed at the federal level, despite state law would be given green light to be operative at state level. Lastly, the most scariest scenario would be where Supreme court could overturn Roe v Wade while upholding the constitutionality of the state law banning abortion. The latter scenario will certainly bring about far-reaching drastic consequences for not only Texas and Mississippi, but also all other U.S. states. In absence of Roe v Wade, right to abortion will be no more, and will effectively come to a halt at the federal level. In that case, right to abortion would be completely determined by state laws. Consequently abortion will become illegal in states which have laws banning abortion. Only those states where no ban is imposed by state laws will continue to enjoy a right to abortion.
Legally speaking, the current political and legal landscape gives a bit of an edge to pro-life movement over pro-choicers. Why do we say that? The political imprint left by Trump administration in the current make-up of the Supreme Curt has created a 6-3 conservative supermajority. Now the Supreme Court's thinking is cloaked in more red. It could turn things upside down at any moment like it did in voting rights case back in July. There is definitely a rightward shift in Supreme Court's thinking over the past few months. Last month, federally imposed eviction moratorium was blocked by the Supreme Court, making way for widespread evictions across the nation. Therefore when it comes to the question of abortion rights, there is a possibility for Roe v Wade to be overruled by the Supreme Court.
However, it is a little premature to prefigure a 6-3 or a 5-4 vote in a future Supreme Court case dealing with Roe v Wade, since the Supreme Court did not go into substantive claims such as constitutionality of S.B. 8 in its recent ruling in Whole Woman's Health v Jackson which was largely decided on technical-procedural lines. Court did not say S.B. 8 is constitutional, but it merely rested its refusal to block execution of S.B. 8 on lack of a clear precedent to block a law exclusively enforced by private citizens.
Your takeaways.
⦁ Texas's new law Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) imposes only civil liability on abortion providers, aiders and abettors. It does not sue women seeking abortion. Nor does it criminalize abortion.
⦁ It is a uniquely designed anti-abortion law featured by an enforcement regime implemented entirely by private citizens, excluding state officials. This first-of-its-kind enforcement mechanism is what helps the new law to dodge judicial review.
⦁ The ban imposed by S.B. 8 is a near-total-ban on abortion as all pre-viability abortions after six weeks are prohibited. According to S.B. 8, an abortion is not possible within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy, if a fetal heartbeat is detected.
⦁ Bounty hunters are awarded a minimum of $10, 000 for each successful case they bring up in courts. No upper limit is set for bounty.
⦁ The main objective of S.B. 8 is to reduce the number of abortions which can be performed legally. This in turn effectively reduces the number of abortion clinics available in Texas. This means women have limited or reduced access to abortion.
⦁ As of yet, no lawsuits have been filed in Texas under its new anti-abortion law S.B. 8 banning abortions after six weeks. Therefore it is interesting to see how the new law will play out in Texas over the next few months. Economic and social and political repercussions of the new law cannot be ruled out.
⦁ As long as Texas's S.B. 8 will continue to be in effect, other states would also follow suit and enact similar restrictive laws banning abortion. However California's pro-choice stance is likely to stay unaffected by Texas anti-abortion sentiments. California will be the ultimate resort for many women deprived of obtaining an abortion in their home states.
⦁ Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman's Health v Jackson did not overrule the precedent in Roe v Wade, but it highlighted pro-life sentiment within the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, raising doubts on the future of Roe v Wade as a precedent.
⦁ Supreme Court will commence hearing of Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization in its 2021-2022 term, probably by late next summer. However no date has been set by the Supreme Court for the hearing. This ruling is decisive to the future of Roe v Wade and the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions created by it fifty year ago. One could say this could be the last summer of Roe v Wade, given the obvious rightward thinking in the Supreme Court conservative majority.
⦁ The Attorney General Merrick Garland has given a pledge to Texan women that Justice Department would explore all possible options to challenge S.B.8 and continue to protect their right to obtain abortions. In keeping with the promise, the Justice Department representing the federal government of the United States has filed a civil law suit (U.S. v Texas) in U.S. District Court of Austin to challenge the constitutionality of Texas's new law S.B. 8 and praying for a declaration that S.B 8 is invalid. It's worth fighting despite the odds are not in favor of the federal government.
⦁ America has a history of half-a-century long free-exercise of pre-viability abortion rights. To many young American women abortion has not been a privilege but a constitutionally guaranteed legal right. They can't fathom an America without abortion. In this backdrop, if Texas's constitutional-flouting S.B. 8 would ever be given green light by the Supreme Court against Roe v Wade, it will create confusion and anxiety among many American women of reproductive age who will ultimately not only be deprived of control over their own bodies and but also inevitably be forced to obtain unsafe abortions through underground abortion providers.
Don't you think it is timely and possible for End-Roers and Pro-Roers to find some dispassionate middle ground on abortion rights? Because even after a possible overruling of Roe by the current Conservative majority in Supreme Court, a future Democratic majority in Supreme Court anyway will restore abortion rights. Overruling Roe doesn't mean putting an end to the abortion controversy.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on how Texas's S.B. 8 ban on abortion will affect Texan women and Texans at large, and how it will change the public perception about the constitutional right to abortion enjoyed by all American women for over five decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment