The Dobbs decision effectively repealed what has been a fundamental right of women in America since 1973. Regardless of one’s view on abortion, the legal ramification of Dobbs is that it rolled back a major milestone in the Women’s Rights movement. In a world where women have fought and struggled for generations in search of equality, this ruling is a gut punch to the movement. America has a long and rich tradition of Women’s Rights advocacy. That long history is due in part to the countless challenges and setbacks faced over the last few centuries. Women in America, or anywhere else, were never handed anything. American women could not legally own property in all 50 states until 1900. They could not vote until 1920. The Equal Rights Amendment prohibiting gender discrimination was only passed by Congress in 1972, and the states never ratified the Amendment, so we still do not have a constitutional prohibition against gender discrimination.
There has always been a tension around women’s rights, an awkward balance between freedom and control, as if the male gender were bestowed some inalienable right over females. Even with a constitutional gender discrimination ban, men justify their exercise of control over the women in their lives because of how we socialize our children through a patriarchal lens. Many of us were raised with cultures and religions that justify gender discrimination through patriarchal ideologies. Many of us continue to expose our children to these harmful traditions without appreciating the serious, long-term consequences on our kids and society at large. One of the negative consequences is that women’s rights are not and have not been prioritized. Women’s rights are deemed secondary and have been since the beginning of time, since the rules were first written by men.
For the majority on the court, it was easy to overturn Roe and give state legislators control over the abortion issue. The court and anti-abortion advocates cite the state’s “interest in the unborn life” as justification for their decision. While I can certainly appreciate the interest in the fetal life, the sentiment rings hollow given how the state seems to lose interest for that life after the child is born. If the life of the child is in fact a state priority, then we would expect to see states supporting young mothers who are otherwise unable to provide some of the most basic necessities including medical care, a healthy diet, early education and extended parental leave. If the state were half as invested in the life of a child after birth, then perhaps, we would have fewer abortions because young mothers would not feel so ill equipped and financially vulnerable when deciding whether to have a child. Forcing a birth on a mother who is already vulnerable and marginalized is not a sound policy decision and will harm the unborn child that the state is seeking to “protect.” The reality is that the Supreme Court decision is not about policy or women’s rights or human rights, it is about control and controlling the female body and her choices.
Alito writes for the majority in Dobb’s that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997). While he is correct that abortion is not be referenced in the Constitution, it certainly should fall under the Due Process Clause thereby protecting a woman’s right to choose because women’s rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” The court decision does not frame the issue as one of women’s rights, instead the focus is on the state’s interest in fetal life. The issue of women’s rights is discounted to allow legislators to control a woman’s reproductive decisions. Again, we see the state prioritizing its interests over the woman’s. It’s expected, it has taken years to assemble this conservative roster of justices and now they finally get to roll back the clock to a more patriarchal period in our history.
Judge Thomas writes in his concurring opinion that this decision should allow the high court to revisit other cases that erroneously established “substantive due process rights” including the right to access contraception without state interference (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 US 479, the right to engage in consensual gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 US 558) and the right to same-sex marriage (Obergfell v. Hodges (2015) 576 US 644). Thomas has identified the slippery slope and applied a generous helping of baby oil to help us slide quickly back to a time when the state’s moral interests outweighed our personal privacy rights.
To be clear, the Dobbs decision has not banned abortion, it has left the issue to each state legislature to decide. Several states have abortion trigger bans that have taken effect following this ruling, several other states will soon follow with similar bans. The ban will result in difficult situations for young, marginalized women with limited resources who reside in states that prohibit access to abortions and who cannot afford to travel or take time off work to find a clinic outside of their state. As usual, these young women will bear the burden that should be shared with the males who impregnated them, but it many cases the males may never appreciate the consequences of their behavior. The Dobbs court ruling constitutes a curtailment of women’s rights and of their status as free and equal citizens, yet so many men could care less.
As men we need to care more and appreciate the challenges and hardships that this court decision has created for women nationwide. We need to educate men and boys about their roles and responsibilities before and after sex. We need them to understand the potential long-term, life changing ramifications of sex and that they should pause and think before they jump into bed. Abortion has been a “women’s issue” for far too long, we need to treat it as a societal issue that requires the attention of men who are responsible for each unplanned pregnancy. We need to address sex and pregnancy as different branches of the same tree, and we must ensure that our boys learn the inherit risks of intercourse and the responsibilities that may follow. These are just the basic responsibilities that come with manhood and sexual activity, they are real, life changing responsibilities that can no longer be dismissed by horny young men who view intercourse as a short-term gratification without long term consequences.
It is also the role of men to advocate for legislation that protects a women’s right to choose, and women’s rights in general. The court has determined that each state will enact its own abortion laws, so it is the duty of all voting age men and women to participate in that process to ensure that we preserve the rights of women to make their own decisions around their reproductive health. This is the least we can do, and this is the time to get to get organized and get to work.