Reflecting on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that found a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 40 years later, a history professor reflects on what has been achieved - and what is to come.
Reflecting on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Janet Golden
By Janet Golden
Twenty years ago I appeared in the film Motherless: A Legacy of Loss from Illegal Abortion, talking about the history of abortion. The 28-minute documentary, embedded above, profiles three women and one man whose mothers died of complications from abortion before its legalization. The film also includes the testimony of a former chief physician at Philadelphia General Hospital recalling the 32-bed ward for women being treated for what he called “botched, criminal abortions.” Surprisingly, the film is still being used in classrooms, and its message - that the legalization of abortion following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision saved women’s lives - is still relevant.
Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that found a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision invalidated all state laws restricting access to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, allowed states to regulate second trimester abortions in ways related to maternal health, and permitted third trimester abortion restrictions including allowing states to outlaw them. You can hear the oral arguments and read the full opinion.
As everyone knows, in the decades since that decision, vehement debates over abortion and the cultural divide those arguments represent have grown ever more virulent. Abortion battles have taken lives, with the assassinations of abortion providers and the bombings of clinics in which abortions are performed. State laws restricting abortion have increased in number, limiting access to safe, legal abortions and making abortion more expensive. But restrictions do not decrease demand. As the Guttmacher Institute points out, “By age 45, nearly half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy and nearly 1 in 3 will have an abortion.”
As we reflect today on the impact of Roe v. Wade, let us remember what it achieved. Maternal mortality declined significantly after the legalization of abortion, because abortions were performed by skilled professionals rather than untrained back-alley practitioners or by women themselves. The safety of legal abortion is documented in a study published last year in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology reviewing the years 1998-2005. During that time death rates from induced abortion were 0.6 per 100,000. By way of comparison the death rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 per 100,000.
Roe v. Wade was a public health success story. But the next chapter has yet to be written. It will involve reducing the rate of abortion by increasing access to contraception. A recent study confirmed that providing free birth control does just that. The Affordable Care Act mandates that private health insurance plans offer birth control and other preventive services. Let us hope that this will reduce the rate of abortion and let us urge that co-pays and other restrictions on birth control be eliminated.
Access to safe, legal abortion and to contraceptives are vital to protecting the public’s health. They are means of ensuring the health of women. And, let us not forget, when women can access the professional medical services they need, fewer children grow up motherless.
Janet Golden, a Rutgers University history professor, specializes in the histories of medicine, childhood and women.
Read more about The Public's Health.
I pity the poor soul who thought her abortion cause was worth dying for. But the word "reflecting" should not be used to call her a champion for inflicting self harm. Let's start "reflecting" on the 50 million other victims of "safe" "legal" abortions since 1973, ie the unborn ones.
— winlasalle- Legalized Abortion is a self-proclaimed "success story"
Since we no longer have any regard for life, let's stop making monuments and grave yards to make us feel important. and just bury everyone in the landfill with the 50 million babies who "successfully" were killed since 1973— winlasalle - This is not intended to be argumentative, or supportive of one side or the other, just a question for the opponents of Roe v Wade - if it were overturned, who pays to raise all of the unwanted children, and the inevitable upturn in crime and incarceration that comes 16 years down the line? I'm making no moral judgement one way or the other, and please don't respond with "n wrongs don't make a right". Just answer the question, who pays? If opponents of Roe v. Wade have a plan to overturn it, where is the part of the plan that includes this information?— bobby-d
Comment removed.- For those who claimed to be pro-life, you are in no way here or now pro-life. Read this and again try to claim that you advocate for life. All you advocate for is pushing you're religious beliefs on everyone else. It is all about you, not the fetus, and certainly not the woman. The only life you care for is your own. Period.
http://nursingclio.org/2012/08/27/are-you-really-pro-life/— afemalehistorian - No mention either of the "Roe" in the case converting and becoming an outspoken pro-lifer! She lied about her story: http://standing-tall.com/Jane%20Roe.htm
Wow, bobby-d - guilty without a trial.— Mr. Underhill - Religious beliefs? More like science, and being a fellow human. But it does tend to be people who are religious who see real injustice and aim to correct it. See slavery and the 60s civil rights movement. Mostly religious folks.— Mr. Underhill
- No one should bear a child she does not want. No child should be born to someone who would rather not have her or him. A fetus is not a person. No woman should need to seek or be injured by an illegal abortion. We need better access and information about birth control, then we would need fewer abortions. Sadly those who oppose murder, often want less access to birth control. What are their goals?— bb1
- @Bill Atkins - yes contraception is cheap, let's wave a magic wand and make everyone who doesn't want children use it. And while we're at it, let's wave a magic wand and make every couple that creates a baby actually raise that child in a nice perfect family home.
Mr Underhill - I'm not condemning anyone to anything, just asking who pays for all of the unwanted children? It is a legitimate question that needs to be asked. And given the reluctance of many to contribute their tax dollars to the needy and poor (a reluctance I share), I'm just wondering where we expect the money to come from. Once the moral arguments are over, practical questions need to be answered. I'm just asking one.— bobby-d - god bless abortion!— Ryan
- I'm for population control...so Roe v. Wade is a big success to me...as are criminal executions, hunting accidents, gun show mishaps, etc.— phillyboy1961
“If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” A profound nugget of wisdom? Many on here think so. But think about that for a moment. Replace the word abortion with something else, and see if it makes sense. For example: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.” Or, “If you don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone.” Absurd, right -- but why? Both those things are illegal and immoral because they intrude on someone else’s rights. Abortion is no different, except of course for the legality. Pro-lifers are against it for the simple reason that the baby is already there. In an abortion there is no choice for the baby. Choice comes when two people choose to have sex, because we all know the likely result. Pro-choicers engage in intellectual gymnastics to deny the obvious humanity of the unborn, and they use abstract language (choice, reproductive rights) to obfuscate it.- Terrific essay. Thanks for posting. I wasn't aware of this movie.— RozWarren
- "Saved women's lives"? And the lives in the womb? How about the father's choice? How about - don't get pregnant in the first place. One mistake? Oh well, it was YOUR CHOICE to have sex; that's how babies are made; plain birds & bees lesson. Then don't get pregnant again after the first child. Welfare recipients male/female should have to work 40 hours a week, submit to birth-control and suffer reduced pay w/ another pregnancy that he or she can't afford. How do abortionists feel anyway? Who are you? Why don't you announce yourselves loud and clear...unless of course you feel some remorse?— ptahan
