Her Campus Logo Her Campus Logo
placeholder article
placeholder article

The Current State of Roe vs. Wade

This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at U Penn chapter.

40 years after the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade, the abortion debate has yet to be settled.

Social issues such as this had been placed on the back burner during the election year, but just a few days after the inauguration, protesters made their way to the nation’s capitol. March for Life advocates gathered at the National Mall in Washington D.C. and eventually arrived at the steps of the Supreme Court to challenge the decision that has become “the law of the land” concerning abortions.

Several keynote speakers were present at the rally, including former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Representative Diane Black of Tennessee, who introduced state legislation to limit budgets for Planned Parenthood, was also present. Signs were visible with statements such as “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “Personhood for everyone”.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 was based on a balance between a woman’s right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and a state’s legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life and women’s health. It is in this bifurcated reasoning that the disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice advocates arises.

For many pro-life advocates, abortion is seen as the human rights abuse of our present day. They argue that abortion is synonymous with murder, that these fetuses are unborn children and deserve a right to life. Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates stress the limitation of government control in order to promote women’s rights and assert that elapsed time, rather than conception, dictate the viability of a fetus.

According to the CDC, the abortion rate in 2009 was 15.1 per 1000 women, with women in their 20s accounting for the majority of abortions. Polls show that many Americans are in support of the Roe v. Wade ruling, but they do believe that there should be considerable restrictions in regulating abortions.

The harsh reality is that the illegality of abortions will not result in the disappearance of these procedures. In fact, backdoor and homemade remedies will most likely become more prevalent and the underreporting of these occurrences will disfigure accurate abortion statistics.

The obvious divide between devout religious inclinations versus secular pragmatism fuels this debate and it lives on because of the gray area surrounding such a sensitive discussion. Who dictates the humanity of a fetus? Who judges the terms justifying abortions? These opposing sides will not likely find a middle ground anytime soon.

Former editor-in-chief of Her Campus UPenn