Caroline Vincent, Executive Editor
@cvincentcourant
Wednesday, August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing all American women the right to vote.
Monday, January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in Roe vs. Wade, protecting pregnant woman’s right to an abortion without excessive government restriction.
Wednesday, September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court declined to block the Texas Heartbeat Act, signaling a step backward in the ongoing struggle for gender equality.
For years, questions surrounding the legality of abortions have been heavily debated in government. States like Alabama, Indiana, and Louisiana have pushed the boundaries of Roe vs. Wade, restricting abortion as early as 20 weeks into a pregnancy. However, unlike the other 1,300 laws across the United States restricting abortion, the recent Texas Heartbeat Act is legislation clear in its intention to ban abortion. Additionally, private citizens can sue abortion providers and others abetting the process: an oblivious Uber driver, a teacher giving advice, or an acquaintance who was aware of the situation and did not contact authorities.
Banning abortion is a violation of a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. This liberty is guaranteed in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reaffirmed by the ruling of Roe vs. Wade, where the Supreme Court stated only a compelling state interest justifies intervention in a woman’s pregnancy. The court declared that in the first trimester, the choice to end a pregnancy was solely up to the woman. During the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion –– but not ban –– in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health is in danger.
The Texas Heartbeat Act demands the protection of a fetus six weeks before the end of the first trimester. Furthermore, asking citizens to sue other citizens is a violation of the privacy that all individuals are guaranteed.
If Texas legislators were really concerned with decreasing abortions, they would focus on the root of the problem: poverty. Nearly half of abortions are given to women living below the federal poverty line according to MarketWatch. Governor Greg Abbott has blocked patients enrolled in Medicaid from accessing all healthcare services at Planned Parenthood centers. With 14.7% of Texan women being below the poverty line –– 2.7% more than the national average –– it is clear that these women lack sufficient resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nonetheless, at the same time that Texas is insisting women carry unwanted pregnancies to term, they are cutting funding to programs that provide children with Medicaid benefits.
Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, who provides reproductive health services at her OB/GYN practice in Texas, feels scared about the new law. “Providing abortion care, and accessing abortion care is actually the very heart of being Texan,” Moayedi said. “Texans don’t believe that the government should interfere in our personal lives. We believe that the community takes care of each other. It doesn’t make sense that our legislators here in the state continue to go after folks for their personal lives, because that’s really not what we’re about here.”
Governments should create policies that protect citizens. Instead, the Texas government is creating policies that harm: pitting citizen against citizen, preying on the economically disadvantaged, and rewriting the narrative of gender equality.
