‘Women’s rights have been eroded’
The three liberal justices argued that the ruling gives states free rein to curtail abortion at any stage
Bloomberg
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court’s decision to wipe out the constitutional right to abortion sparked a blistering dissent by three liberal justices who said the conservative majority had eroded women’s rights and may soon target rights to contraception and gay marriage.
By overturning the landmark Roe v Wade decision, the majority stripped away the rights of women from the “very moment of fertilisation”, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote. “With sorrow - for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection - we dissent.”
They added, “Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.” By forcing women to give birth, “a state can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare”.
The liberal justices argued that the ruling gives states free rein to curtail abortion at any stage whether it be after “ten weeks, or five or three or one-or again, from the moment of fertilisation”. They warned that states could prevent women from having abortions even if they face physical harm.
The joint dissent blasted the majority for focusing so heavily on laws put in place at a time when women weren’t allowed to vote. “When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship,” the dissenters wrote. The drafters of the original constitution “did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognise women’s rights,” they wrote.
Bloomberg
WASHINGTON : Faced with the biggest blow to reproductive health care in half a century, abortion advocates are promising to help people who need the procedure but suddenly find themselves stranded in states that don’t allow it. Yet meeting the expected surge in demand from across blue-state borders will be tough - even after anticipating for months that the court would reverse Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide.
Abortion facilities face daunting challenges. Costs to keep clinic doors open can be prohibitive. Providers can experience price gouging for supplies, rent and liability coverage.
They face shrinking reimbursements from insurance companies and Medicaid.
Ever-changing legislation and zoning laws require clinics to renovate or relocate to comply with byzantine rules. A shortage of health-care workers means that some facilities that want to expand don’t have the staff to do so. About half of all abortions - the latest available data say about 300,000 in 2019, including medication abortions - were performed in states considered hostile to the procedure. Without Roe’s constitutional guarantee, 26 states are likely or certain to ban the procedure or tighten existing restrictions, says the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive rights. Such laws will further jeopardise access for more than 33 million child-bearing people.
“This is going to put huge pressure on those states and those clinics” providing care, said Lori Brown, a Syracuse University professor who studies abortion-related legislation. “I don’t know that they’ll be able to meet the demand that this is going to create. It’s going to create such an unequal system of access.”