On January 23, 2017 Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy that prohibits any United States funding to go to international organizations that support abortion, creating outrage and sparking yet another debate about women’s reproductive rights across all of the United States (Terkel). This is just one easy decision that Trump has made and it is frightening to think about the changes he could make within the United States; at this moment in time a woman’s right to choose has never been so contested. Abortion has always been a controversial topic and is one that has been the center of political arguments since the ruling of Roe vs. Wade made it legal. Since this decision, pro-choice and pro-life advocates have been fighting for whose side is the “most correct” rather than thinking about the health benefits that it offers many women. No matter the direction the argument goes, it cannot be denied that legal abortion has decreased the number of maternal fatalities and increased the quality of women’s care all over the country. By looking at United States abortion laws and major political uproars, it can bee seen that a woman’s right to choose is being negatively affected. This is important because politics are following a common trend, since the ruling of Roe v. Wade, of crossing a line by dictating what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Abortion is a highly politicized issued but a woman’s right to choose should be superior to legislation. 

Sparking the debate of women’s reproductive rights was the case of Roe v. Wade. Prior to this case most states had strict laws that prohibited women from obtaining abortions all together. Although there were no abortion laws in place before the nineteenth century, by 1970 thirty-seven of fifty states had laws that made obtaining or preforming an abortion illegal (“Roe v. Wade”). Therefore, for women, getting an abortion seemed like an impossible task. This led many, if they were wealthy enough, to travel to other states to obtain one in a state that did not have laws that were as severe. However, many of the women that caught themselves in these situations were not wealthy enough to travel and depended on their ability to attend their jobs daily to survive, which is why rates of dangerous illegal abortions were as high as 200,000 per year prior to this revolutionary case (“Roe v. Wade”). 

For this reason of obtaining and protecting women’s rights, lawyers Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington sought out Norma McCorvey, who testified under the pseudonym Jane Roe (“Roe v. Wade”). Norma McCorvey was pregnant when the lawyers found her and was hoping to get an abortion rather than go through the struggles of pregnancy, which she was denied by the state of Texas (“Roe v. Wade”). Unable to travel to another state where it was legal, McCorvey agreed to file a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the Dallas court district attorney (McBride). The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court where it was reargued for the final time on October 11, 1972 (“Roe v. Wade”). The petitioners argued that based off of the ruling of previous Supreme Court cases a certain level of privacy is inherently earned by each citizen and they claimed that abortion fell under this “zone of privacy” for both women and practitioners (McBride). In January 1973 the decision made by the Supreme Court to legalize abortion during the first trimester shook the country as women finally won a certain level of much needed reproductive freedom (McBride). 

However their win was short lived because just three years later laws were passed that again limited reproductive freedoms, and laws such as these continue to be passed by certain states today. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that parental and spousal consent was necessary before obtaining an abortion and the “Hyde Amendment” was implemented (Wilson). This amendment cut off all government funding for abortion except for in extreme circumstances such as rape or incest (Wilson). Limiting the rights just given to women created a nasty pattern of the government being involved in women’s reproductive matters.  From the moment of the ruling, anti-abortion politicians and pro-life supports have fought to reverse the groundbreaking decision that changed women’s lives and health for the better. 

Even though the benefits of legal abortion have been clear, decreased numbers in abortion as well as “abortion-related mortality” have ceased to end the battle (Berer). Abortion remains a highly political topic because many believe that morally terminating a pregnancy is a negative thing. However, studies have shown that many women who do take advantage of their rights think out their decision in its entirety and find nothing morally wrong with it except for the social constructs placed on them by society (Løkeland 171). However, “attacks on women’s health, particularly abortion access” have been incredibly intensified (Laguens 190). In 2011 and 2012 state legislatures tripled provisions restricting women’s access to safe and legal abortion by creating mandatory ultrasound laws and requiring doctors to “make statements to their patients that are not rooted in science or medicine,” as well as regulating abortion providers (Laguens 190). Laws prohibiting abortion in the second trimester have become increasingly popular as well. Since the Roe v. Wade decision dealt primarily with the first trimester, the second has been left open for interpretation and politicians have taken advantage of it. The rule normally followed is that abortion is legal up until viability, which is typically around twenty-two weeks. However, cruel politicians will fight for abortion rights to be taken away earlier than the second trimester if they are able to even though the women that find out they are pregnant after their first trimester are more vulnerable than women that find out earlier (Berer 6). These laws have little in mind about patient care and the lives of mothers and have all to do with political warfare between parties.

Perhaps one of the grosser attempts made to limit abortion was Texas’ effort to get rid of potentially all of their state’s clinics that offered abortion services. Texas’ law, referred to as House Bill 2, would create two major changes (Domnoske). First, it was designed to limit physicians’ rights by forcing them to have privileges at hospitals, even though the creators of this bill were well aware that they would never be able to obtain them (Domonoske). Second, it would force clinics to make updates to their facilities so that they met “hospital grade standards” that no other outpatient procedure locations required (Domonoske). Again the Supreme Court was forced to intervene when Texas legislators continually tried to get these laws put into effect. However, since cases such as these take time, in the time that did pass, roughly seventy-five percent of the abortion clinics in Texas were shut down forcing women to once again travel long distances to obtain the medical assistance they sought (Domonoske).  For these reasons many of the justices saw that these laws put an “undue burden” on women as Justice Breyer writes, “these restrictions vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefits to women’s health” (Domonoske). Finally, years after the bill was proposed by Texas legislatures and after closures of many clinics, House Bill 2 was declared unconstitutional.   Similar to the Roe v. Wade case the final decision was met with heavy controversy. However laws such as these aren’t uncommon and Texas is not the only state that hopes to see abortion become illegal or more difficult to obtain again. While this battle was won in support of women’s reproductive rights many more will be lost to political greed. As Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has stated about his organizations work, they “will continue our work to protect women and children from the predatory abortion industry” (Domonoske). 

The damage that the House Bill 2 created between the years 2012 and 2014 have still not been repaired or compensated for. During these short few years the number of clinics in Texas dropped to just twenty-one and by the time the ruling was made only 17 remained (Grossman). This caused many women who lived in smaller, more impoverished towns to travel great distances due to the lack of necessary providers. Although politicians who are “pro-life” would have celebrated the decrease in number of abortions, what few people realized was that at the same time second trimester abortions were skyrocketing (Grossman). This is hard to imagine because of the strict laws that are imposed on second trimester abortions and the higher risk of complications that accompany it, but because so many clinics closed women who could have quickly obtained one were delayed. Since these women were not able to get a much less complicated abortion earlier they were forced to wait and to plan when they were able to travel to clinics that were still open and willing to proceed. This beckons the question of what dangers await women who are unable to travel. These damages, done prior to the Supreme Court ruling can show the destruction of what would happen if Trump, who claims that women can “go to another state”, were truly able to overturn Roe v. Wade. Women who are out of options and feel the need to take abortion into their own hands are putting their lives at risk. Many women will do whatever it takes such as self-harm, drugs, or obtain unsafe and unclean abortion services from an unqualified doctor. None of these options are healthy for women, but if their rights are taken away it may end up being there only option, and death or jail may be the consequences. Hundreds of thousands of women’s lives were lost each year before Roe v. Wade made abortion illegal, there is no reason to subject women to those odds ever again. The physical, psychological, financial, and familial stresses that this would put on families would be too great to overcome, hence why the legal right to abortion is so necessary. 

In an ideal world however abortion would not be a political issue at all but rather a personal one that is between the woman, her family, her faith, and any other factors that are involved. If the politics of it all were not as destabilizing more women would feel free to talk about abortion more openly as Aspen Baker is doing. In a way, talking about abortion has the ability to undermine the politics of the situation. For Aspen having “the knowledge that I wasn’t alone and the realization that abortion was something that we can talk about,” allowed her make a decision of whether or not to get an one (Baker). She didn’t look into the political stances of the pro-choice and pro-life arguments but rather decided to get an abortion after having an easy conversation with a friend. Due to the rights that she has, inherently, under the constitution she was able to obtain a safe abortion. While “abortion is still a taboo at some levels and is generally only discussed as a medical, ethical, or political issue,” many believe that adding personal stories and experiences and being able to converse about the topic will help people to realize that the lives of women without safe abortion will be detrimentally affected (Løkeland). 

However there is also the flip side of what would happen if the government completely withdrew from the issue entirely. Marge Berer writes in her journal National Law and Unsafe Abortion: The Parameters of Change that, “regulation by government of both public and private abortion services has been shown to be necessary in all countries to ensure quality of care, humane treatment, use of the safest methods, and provisions of services free or at a cost that even the poorest women can afford” (Berer 5). While the government shouldn’t be able to determine whether or not women have the reproductive rights to get an abortion, they should be able to regulate it as long as it is beneficial to them. The issue of abortion is incredibly controversial and highly debated because so many people are invested in it; however women’s rights should be the main priority not politicians’. 

Abortion is a highly politicized topic that often doesn’t consider women’s health to be its main priority. The benefits of legal abortion and easy access can clearly be seen especially when compared to statistics of developing countries. In many developing countries abortion is still not legal and the death of mothers who do not wish to be pregnant are often forced risk their lives attempting dangerous options that often lead to maternal death or injury. Why do legislators, who are typically men, not understand or choose to ignore the benefits that having a natural right to choose offers. Rather than continuing to battle for their specific “side” they should allow women to make their own decisions. As this essay has stated before the government should be able to regulate the laws to make sure that women’s rights are not being taken advantage of but should not be able to determine whether or not they have the legal right to an abortion. It is a completely personal decision that should remain outside of the government’s hands and remain entirely up to the women and any other factors of her life. The United States has the option to act as an example for other countries that do not yet allow legal abortion, but this change will not be made under the Trump administration. Women’s rights have never been so threatened under any other presidency. While other presidents have opposed abortion no other president has seemed as adamant about limiting or getting rid of it all together. After seeing the outrage that people demonstrated, limiting abortion rights will not go noticed or uncontested. As history has shown abortion will never disappear whether the right is given or taken away, so attempts to make it illegal are rather superfluous. Politian’s should take more into consideration about the lives of mothers rather than prioritizing political gain and greed.  
