In June of 2022, The Supreme Court of the United States voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, a previous ruling made 50 years prior that protects women’s right to contraceptives and abortions on any accounts. The Supreme Court Justices that voted to expel these protections are Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, leaving the three remaining Democratic justices voting to protect the ruling. Which begs the question: what does this mean for the future of America?

The Supreme Court ruling, now ensuing for two years, gives the power to accept or reject abortions based on state authority. That is why some states, like Idaho, Alabama and Texas are standing out amid the crowd. Each of these states, and a handful of others, enacted trigger laws after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Trigger laws are laws put in place, often ahead of time, so that when a certain bill is passed, that state can very quickly ban or prohibit something. In this case, it’s abortion. That means that a state like Kansas could create a trigger law in 2019 and have it go into effect immediately after the overturning.

Katie Cox, a Texas resident, requested an abortion after finding out her fetus was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a rare and potentially harmful genetic condition. According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the lower court in Texas granted Cox an exception to the ban for the state, but the judicial Supreme Court for Texas revoked the exception. However, the state’s Attorney General told hospitals that if any doctor were to perform an abortion on Cox, they would be charged with a felony in the first degree.

Reproductive rights are being infringed upon in America, whether you are a Republican or Democrat. It feels like almost every day, a new statement comes out from some governmental entity stating that some other freedom will be stripped from the hands of Americans. Our country that claims to stand for all that is good and free is morphing into what can only be described as a theocracy. Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, asked in a statement on their website, “What else do you call it when women can no longer get a necessary medical procedure that was legal everywhere as recently as two years ago because of someone else’s religious beliefs?”

Study Smarter UK defined body autonomy as “a foundational right, by that we mean it is a right that other important human rights are built on.” Yet, the stripping away of bodily autonomy rights is something inherently rooted within feminist history. For example, you don’t see a news flash going out that all men will be mandated to get vasectomies. This issue has and always will be a women’s issue, and of course by that I mean a constant obstacle and roadblock for women. In that same regard, Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times contributing and opinion writer revealed a startling truth of how in vitro fertilization, a counterpart to body autonomy, coincides with abortion (Let’s Thank the Alabama Supreme Court, Greenhouse).

Abortion is generally portrayed as a woman’s issue; an unwanted or even dangerous  pregnancy is her problem. Infertility, by contrast, is seen as a couple’s problem. That means there is a man involved (even if, for lesbian couples, for example, or for single women, that man is only a sperm donor). And when men have a problem, we know the world is going to snap to attention.

International acknowledgement of bodily autonomy was not recognized at the UN World Conference for Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace hosted in Beijing, China until 1995 (Study Smarter, UK). The declaration was signed by 189 different countries, and stated, “the empowerment and autonomy of women and the improvement of women’s social, economic and political status is essential for the achievement of both transparent and accountable government and administration and sustainable development in all areas of life.” Today, even after the passing of the Beijing declaration, there are still 24 countries with total abortion bans upon their citizens.

Opinions regarding abortion and bodily autonomy restrictions often stem from religious belief systems. And when you think about it, it makes sense. The first people to condemn the termination of a hypothetical fetus’s life are those that believe all children are born within a Christian God’s image. However, medically and scientifically, this is not a reason that needs to be considered. The reasons that do need to be considered are in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother/child.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, the World Health Organization (WHO) encourages all countries to permit abortions in cases of rape and incest, and they often will. However, in some cases, they will not. An Ohio Republican representative named Jean Schimdt was offered a hypothetical question in April 2022. The hypothetical scenario was this: a 13-year-old girl becomes pregnant after she was raped – did that mean the new bill being proposed would still make her carry that baby? Schmidt replied, “it is a shame that it happens, but there’s an opportunity for that woman, no matter how young or old she is, to make a determination about what she’s going to do to help that life be a productive human being.” She called rape an “opportunity” for this young girl to determine what the rest of her life would be like. For Ohio residents, those are the people in charge of passing your laws.

The Center for Reproductive Rights also states many countries that allow abortion for cases of rape often allow it for incest as well (known as a comparative law), but there are still a quarter of those countries that only allow abortions for rape. Ethiopia is an example of a country that will not force a woman who has become pregnant from rape or incest to explicitly state who her assaulter was, and furthermore, does not make her take a rape kit to prove that the incident happened. Another example in Ghana’s Ministry of Health says, “a woman’s word is sufficient in cases of rape or incest.”

There are many entities that have aligned themselves with supporting and protecting women from abortion bans. Some examples are the UN Treaty for Monitoring Bodies (TMBs), the Committee Against Torture (CAT), the Maputo Protocol in Africa, the Committee of Experts on Violence (CEVI) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

On Jan. 31, 2024, the U.S. Congress introduced the Abortion Funding Awareness Act to the House of Representatives. The bill itself “establish[es] reporting requirements for states regarding certain Medicaid payments to abortion providers” (Congress.gov, H.R. 7161). House Representative and Republican Jim Banks, From District 3 of Indiana, introduced the bill to the House of Energy and Commerce, but any action on this has yet to be taken.

On April 5, the House passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, mandating fines and up to a few years in jail for any doctor or physician that provides a woman with a partial-birth abortion. According to the Women’s Congressional Policy Institute, the amendment to this bill is similar to one sponsored by Democratic Representative Steny Hoyer and Republican Representative James Greenwood that would aim to prohibit all post-viability abortions (Women’s Congressional Policy Institute, H.R. 2149). During the discussion, Representative Greenwood stated something very important to hear: “No, this is all about politics. It is not about saving lives. It is about winning hearts. It is about saving seats in Congress. It is about winning seats in Congress. It is not about making law.”

I felt to best analyze this topic, I’d have to hear from the woman who birthed me. So, I had a sit-down interview with my mother, Jane, a 63-year-old retired school social worker. And though I’m biased, I have to say she had some good answers to some tricky questions.

My mom was the youngest of three, growing up Northern Virginia and spending most all her time in the Lutheran church my grandfather was the pastor of. She was just 11 years old when Roe vs. Wade originally passed so she doesn’t remember much about that, but she confidently stated, “I would say it is 100% accurate that I never heard the word abortion until college.” She informed me that during her time at college, birth control was not free—on the contrary, it was actually very expensive. This was because insurance determined it as your own choice if you were doing actions that required you to need contraceptive protection. “You mean the federal government thinks that they have a right to talk about this? Or that they need to talk about this? Isn’t this just a medical issue with a woman and her doctor?” That was what my mother thought when she first heard what went down in 2022.

As previously mentioned, my mother is very religious. She believes that God intended people to create life with one another, and she believes that life begins at conception. But she acknowledges how complicated the issue is, and that part of America’s freedom is the separation of church and state—so that laws like the recent overturn should never happen. She says, “I would define myself as pro-choice, but if I were protesting about abortion, my sign would say ‘I’m pro-choice, but please, please, please, think about your options…’”

Another aspect that affects her opinions is her previous career of 30 years as a social worker. She worked in Chesterfield County, Va. in the public school system for her last seven years, all the way from elementary to high school; needless to say, she interacted with many kids.  That means she’s seen a lot of students with varying socioeconomic statuses and students that have been through the foster care system. “My work and my training require me to analyze everything,” she said, “it comes easily to me.” She stated that knowing all this and feeling too involved made her not want to work with the adoption system, even though she miscarried twice after having me.

This conversation with my mom, and the research I’ve done on the topic of abortion have given me a greater understanding of what this discussion entails. It certainly is not one to be taken lightly, or without serious knowledge on the subject matter. What most concerns me, and should concern all Americans, is where we are headed as a country. The way laws were designed to work, or at least a common understanding, is that our generation was supposed to have more rights and freedoms than our parents. Is that what’s currently happening?

Why is a call to action always needed at the end of these conversations? Can’t our country be able to function well enough without needing to give a soapbox speech about banding together and forming alliances to protect each other against our lawmakers? These rights we no longer have are not fair, not “Christian,” and certainly not inherently political. I challenge everyone to be aware, stay safe and never stop fighting for what is just.