‘Roe’ ruling should worry us all
The decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that recognised the constitutional right to abortion, was made by America’s highest court. The bleak consequences for basic liberties and democracy, however, will go far beyond its borders.
From the start, Roe had unusually significant ripples. It came a time when the US and a large swath of the world was moving toward greater freedoms for women and minorities, and further democratisation. For rights activists it was a milestone — a symbol of what could be achieved.
There were many steps forward for women from the late 1960s, as demands shifted from the right to contraception to decriminalising abortion: In Europe, the protests of 1968 were a watershed. And in 1971, nearly two years before the US decision, 343 French women (including actress Catherine Deneuve and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir) declared in a national magazine that they had had abortions. West German women followed, challenging the idea of pregnancy termination as shameful, and undergone only by those in disgrace.
But Roe was key to the global momentum that ensured French Health Minister Simone Veil was able to deliver her historic speech to a nearly all-male parliament in 1974, demanding a law that would recognise a practice that took place anyway, to protect women. For Irish conservatives, Roe — and the privacy argument it made, which also led to a court victory in Ireland on the use of contraceptives — was frightening. Despite existing restrictions, they pushed for a referendum to amend the constitution giving equal rights to the unborn and the mother, an effective ban. Roe has been a reference not only for activists in Europe, but in Latin America and elsewhere, a path to be followed for anyone seeking a route to greater freedoms through the courts.
The risk now is that having inspired those pushing for greater liberties, the US’s backward slide will encourage the opposite at home and abroad — while also hampering Washington’s ability to advocate for basic healthcare, gender and even democracy in the developing world. For now, it’s true, as justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote in their heartfelt dissenting opinion, that US states will become international outliers — more than 50 countries have expanded access to legal termination over the past quarter century, and very few have gone backwards. But populists and conservative leaders across the globe have spotted an opportunity to grow that small number, using abortion as a wedge issue that galvanises their base and fuels culture wars. It’s a long-awaited dog whistle.
In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro — trailing in the polls ahead of October’s presidential election — was quick to spot the opportunity. He seized on the case of an 11-year-old, pregnant as a result of rape, and dissuaded from having an abortion by a judge who asked her “to hang on a little longer”, saying her (legal) late-stage termination was “unacceptable”. Brazil already allows abortion only in very limited circumstances. After the Supreme Court ruling, he tweeted a picture of himself with a small child on his lap asking God to “give strength and wisdom to those who protect innocence and the future of our children”.
In Argentina, exuberant libertarian lawmaker Javier Milei, an admirer of Donald Trump whose star has been on the rise, promised to “achieve the same” at home — where abortion was legalised in late 2020 under the current president, Alberto Fernandez, whom Mr Milei hopes to challenge in next year’s election.
Even in Western Europe, where abortion rights tend to be widely supported, German lawmaker Beatrix von Storch, of anti-immigrant, far-right Alternative for Germany, greeted the ruling as “a signal of hope” that “radiates to the whole West”, and Spanish far-right party Vox hoped it would “encourage Europeans in the fight for the rights of the innocent”.
Abortion has been a totemic issue, rallying those unhappy with the pace of social change, a way of sowing division in the name of family values. And the Supreme Court has knowingly added fuel to all those fires.
It matters, too, that Washington will be able to do less to stop the damage abroad — not only because its credibility is tarnished, in terms of democracy and women’s self-determination, but because US foreign assistance to organisations performing or advising on abortion has already been limited in the past under Republican presidents — and those threats will increase. US support for family planning, sorely needed in many parts of the world, will come under pressure overseas, just as it will at home.
Meanwhile, anti-choice groups are emboldened, well-funded and ready to bring the legal assaults that toppled Roe to other nations. Conservative Christian groups have already spent millions in Europe.
The good news is that the ruling is also a wakeup call. There have been few clearer demonstrations that the rights of women and minorities are not to be taken for granted. That progress is not always necessarily linear, and laws can change for the worse. It’s a reminder that democracy is much like Ernest Hemingway’s description of bankruptcy. It goes gradually, then suddenly.
All the more reason to push for popular votes to allow the majority to speak, and to build broad grassroots coalitions. Not only for those who can get pregnant and their families, but for democracy. It cannot thrive if women lose their rights at the moment of conception.