A matter of choice
Once again, the world watches agog as the United States of America seems determined to prove that its very name is a misnomer. This time around – and it’s not new – the argument rages over abortion. At least that appears to be the premise, though the issues are much deeper and far more dangerous than they appear to be, as at the very core they involve women’s rights; any diminishing of which would strike a blow to the ongoing worldwide struggle. It is true that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold.
Just over a week ago, the media company Politico published an online exclusive in which it reported that according to a draft opinion, the US Supreme Court was likely to vote to overturn abortion rights. According to the draft, which was leaked to the news agency by a whistleblower, who hopefully will forever remain unknown, the Supreme Court seeks to return the “issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives”. In effect, it will see the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe v Wade, which in 1973 established a woman’s right to privacy and to safe and legal abortion within the first three months of pregnancy in all 50 states. This story was subsequently picked up by other media outlets and has resulted in a series of protests, both verbal and physical, that are ongoing, against the draft being made final.
The leaked draft was written in response to a case that began in Mississippi, where the only women’s health organisation licensed to perform abortions in the state challenged a law passed by that state’s legislature in 2018, which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age. Previously, abortions were legal in Mississippi up to the 20th week of pregnancy. If the Supreme Court’s final ruling mirrors what is stated in the draft, then it would set a precedent for other states – almost half of the country at this point – to ban medical termination of pregnancy. Already, like Mississippi, many had started in recent years to enact similar restrictive legislation.
The real question, however, is one that has long been answered. The truth remains unwaveringly the same, in spite of those who choose not to hear it; every human being has the right to determine what he or she does with his or her body and this applies to every facet of life. Never, in any secular state, will thought even be given to enacting a law that forces men to have vasectomies. Yet, many men (and women) seem to have no problem with legislation that dictates what a woman must or must not do with her own body. Where patriarchy exists, so do double standards.
What is it about abortion that makes it so abhorrent to some? It possibly has something to
do with the fact that women have so long been cast as mere childbearers. So much so that they are still saddled with an inherent shame when they are unable to carry a baby to full term whether for medical reasons or by choice. Then there are the stigma, the discrimination and the public blaming and shaming, all of which are likely holdovers from colonisation, that haunt our collective psyche.
Anti-abortionists would have us believe that every conception, even those that emerge from execrable circumstances, should proceed per the course. Some quote Bible verses that they believe speak to the issue, even though the texts do not mention abortion. Of course, none of this has any place in a secular society, which the USA is, a fact they are willing to conveniently overlook. Others will expound on when life begins and the rights of the unborn child because, obviously, the person carrying the foetus, who will have to birth it, and care for it including financially, has no rights. There is a lot of guilt-tripping involved in these arguments, as if the women who have to make the choice whether or not to have a child are not already in terrible headspace owing to the psychological and spiritual conditioning with which they were raised.
The fact is that abortion is a public health issue and any decision about whether or not a woman has one should remain within the parameters of a health care setting. Not all abortions require surgical intervention and health care providers, armed with proper knowledge regarding pregnancy duration can ensure that women end unwanted or dangerous pregnancies safely and privately if that is their choice. Further, they are able to steer them towards effective and affordable reproductive health products that reduce or eliminate the likelihood of them having another such procedure. But to be pellucid, bodily autonomy is a human rights issue, which
means it is or should be a matter of choice for any woman whether or not she has a child and she should be able to make that decision without having to explain herself and without fear or favour. This is one of the reasons why the World Health Organisation included comprehensive abortion care in the list of essential health care services it published in 2020.
Contrary to what anti-abortionists preach, making the medical termination of pregnancy illegal does not save children. Rather, unwanted children end up suffering in worse ways; look around they are everywhere. Also, a look at history would reveal that abortions would still occur, but they would be done clandestinely and unsafely, in many instances ultimately leading to complications that end in death or prohibitive costs to both the women and the health care system.
All that aside, women’s rights activists are concerned, and rightly so, that given an inch those currently seeking to effectively reverse Roe v Wade would take a mile. The resulting erosion in hard fought for women’s rights might not be contained to the US. That being the case, while we watch the US, we should also be paying attention to our own lawmakers to ensure they neither get any ideas nor are pressured into taking regressive actions. There is also a need to shore up our own health systems, which are still not operating at the optimum where women’s health is concerned.