A lot of us are lulled into such a sense of security that it seems implausible that Roe v. Wade could ever be overturned. Yet, I think we sometimes forget that the court decision that gave women the right to make decisions about their own bodies happened not too long ago; in 1973 in fact, just 43 years ago. Even Griswold v. Connecticut, which prohibited laws from controlling contraception, wasn’t decided until 1965. That means that our own grandmothers, or in some cases, our own mothers, were prohibited from taking the pill in certain states in our beloved America. We must remember that we are not so removed from an America that would dictate the state of our bodies and violate our rights to our own flesh. Even today, the issue of reproductive health keeps getting dragged into our news and, perhaps most dangerously, into our government. The private and the personal elements of the female self keep getting made political.
Our recent election has once more brought the female body to the forefront of our governmental policies. Once again, men are haggling over my uterus and my right to walk into an abortion clinic and get the care to which I should have a right. In a presidential debate, Donald Trump went so far as to say that he would appoint Supreme Court judges who would reverse Roe v. Wade. Everything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth might sound like a half-baked thought, but now he is going to be our president, and will regrettably have a say in our government. Upon being asked about it after he had won the election, Trump reiterated his commitment to nominating anti-women’s rights judges (known in some circles as “pro-life”) to the Supreme Court.
What would the reversal of Roe v. Wade mean? Certainly, it would mean that women’s rights are once again up for debate. On a more practical level, though, it would mean that the decision of whether or not to allow abortions at all and at what stage would go to the states. Conservative states might entirely ban abortions. Our state of New Jersey is a liberal state where a lot of the hurdles that women face in receiving health care do not exist. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it is very likely that New Jersey would continue to allow abortions within state lines. However, even with Roe v. Wade, the laws in many states are still stringent on women who do decide to get an abortion – waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, parental consent are just some of the ways that abortion is regulated. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade, we would be back to square one. Not only would we be unable to fight against unnecessary and harmful regulations on women’s reproductive care, but conservative states would also be capable of banning abortion all together.
With Trump there is always a smoke screen, however. His sweeping statements about reversing a landmark court case or about punishing women for having abortions (later recanted) merely eclipse the even more immediate threats to the sovereignty of the female body.
In just this past year, Mike Pence, our vice-president-elect and governor of Indiana, signed a state law requiring that “a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains.” Now, the image of some tired, overworked nurse at an abortion clinic burying tiny clumps of cells in the backyard might cut a morbidly comical image, but what really cuts deep is the thought of a law mandating unscientific rituals for the explicit regulation of women’s reproductive rights. An even more ludicrous aspect of this Pence-approved law was that it marketed itself as a bill to protect civil rights – it prohibits women from having an abortion if somehow the woman’s reason for fetal termination is deemed discriminatory. It prevents women from terminating their pregnancies even if their fetus is diagnosed with “Down syndrome or any other disability.” The bill provides for punishment of the women in the form of “disciplinary sanctions and civil liability for wrongful death.”
This kind of bill lends itself to a subjective interpretation and allows courts to punish women for deciding to abort. A federal judge rightfully struck down this Indiana bill for being a gross infringement on women’s civil rights just a couple of month later.
But now, Mike Pence is our vice-president-elect. And Republicans in many states have decided to treat this as a mandate for passing restrictive legislation on abortion administration. Recently, Texas legislators have introduced bills that are very similar in nature to the one that Pence signed into law (in case you were wondering, yes, it also has a provision for fetus funerals). Even Pennsylvania recently encountered a ban on abortions past 20 weeks (it wasn’t voted on).
There is no doubt that such efforts by Republicans will continue to surface and perhaps even be implemented in state or federal legislatures. Once again, middle-aged white men (the primary occupants of most roles in the American government) will discuss female bodies in a collective setting and what they should or should not be allowed to do.
The personal life of a woman will continue to be political; women don’t have a choice at this point. We must haggle over labels like pro-choice and pro-life when the real issue is that a woman’s right to abortion is even a debate in the first place. Even today, it strikes me as profoundly absurd that a man sitting in a legislature can decide if a woman is capable of making the right choice for herself and for her baby. Living on a campus where most people would agree with on this point often blinds me to this reality. Princeton is so overwhelmingly liberal that sometimes I can forget that there are many people out there who believe that women should not even be equal to men, let alone have the ability to make decisions about their own bodies.
However, that is the reality. Mike Pence exists. Texas “pro-life” legislators exist. Donald Trump exists. The patriarchy exists. Now, all we (progressive men and women) can do is pay careful attention to what our government, on both the state and federal level, does that infringes on uterine rights. Then, we must protest loudly, because we are, after all, a significant portion of the population.
Bhaamati Borkhetaria is a sophomore from Jersey City, New Jersey. She can be reached at bhaamati@princeton.edu.
