Liberty, Life, Equality and Abortion
Heath Gilby
Saint Mary’s University
POLI 1230
December 6th, 2022
The ability to choose and carry out reproductive actions is crucial to how individuals
build their lives. Regardless of where someone is living, their economic situation, their colour, or
their identity and heritage, everyone needs and deserves comprehensive reproductive health care
that is affordable and accessible. This demands that the government uphold, respect, and fulfill
rights to reproductive autonomy. The history of women's reproductive oppression in the United
States and across the world have produced the current conditions for women and have created
long-lasting consequences that result from a government's failure to implement the constitution
in the best interests of its citizens.
In the United States, there is constant squabbling between the different parties. Each side using
their different influences to gain the upper hand such as the men in power or the evangelicals in
Republican dominated states. (Bentele et al., 2018). While most are pointing fingers at each
other, the world progresses and looks forward, gaining research and technology to support
women's autonomy. Many countries have developed extremely progressive policies. The
restriction of access to reproductive healthcare, including maternal healthcare and abortion care,
has been determined by Indian courts to be a violation of the right to life. The right to health,
which includes the right to reproductive health, is a component of the right to life, coupled with
the right to live a dignified life, according to the Supreme Court of Nepal. Kenya held that
patients or medical professionals who seek or provide abortion care cannot be arbitrarily
detained or prosecuted since access to abortion treatment is protected by the nation's constitution.
Since the right to life obligates governments to stop women and girls from having unsafe
abortions and to actively encourage access to abortion, these countries uphold the same human
rights values. The ability and acceptability of no criminal law has been demonstrated by Canada.
The WHO has demonstrated that first-trimester abortions can be provided safely and effectively
at the primary and community level by trained mid-level providers and the provision of medical
abortion pills by trained pharmacy staff. Sweden has demonstrated that abortions after 18 weeks
can effectively disappear with very good services. (Berer, 2017).
Years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court correctly stated that the Liberty Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment protects private choices over whether and when to have children. In fact,
the Supreme Court has understood the textual protection for liberty in the Constitution to
encompass the right to make private decisions regarding one's family, marriage, and childrearing
as well as the right to regulate one's body for more than a century. These well-established
freedoms of choice and physical integrity enable a wide range of reproductive autonomy rights,
such as the freedom to access contraception and abortion as well as the freedom to choose
whether to have children. Courts must be explicit in stating that people do not lose their legal
rights when they become pregnant and that they have an equal claim to all recognized rights
when examining constraints on reproductive autonomy. The life, liberty, and equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as similar
protections in state constitutions and federal and state statutes, must protect the right to
reproductive autonomy considering the effects that pregnancy and having children have on an
individual's health, work, family, and capacity to determine one's own course in life. Although
the government should educate the public with correct, information, and it cannot penalize or
otherwise control the behaviour of pregnant individuals based only on an assumed interest in
defending future life. Furthermore, reproductive autonomy is essential to guard against ongoing
government attempts to restrict reproduction in order to oppress women and underprivileged
groups. The right to reproductive autonomy must consider actual access and ensure that
government laws and policies must be adopted that facilitate rather than restrict such access.
Decisions about family life and raising children must be made by the individual, not by the
government. Governments must ensure that there is no force, prejudice, violence, intimidation,
or coercion used in making these choices. When people are not allowed to make choices
regarding their reproductive potential, they are stripped of their dignity and autonomy. In
conclusion, because pregnancy-related decisions are deeply rooted in the fundamental rights to
bodily integrity and personal autonomy in terms of family, medical care, and conscience, they
deserve constitutional protection under the Liberty Clause. (Erdman, 2017)
A safe, healthy, and supportive environment should be provided during pregnancy and
labour. Pregnancy provides the potential for considerable health dangers even under ideal
conditions. Pregnancy can result in the development of new health issues in addition to
aggravating pre-existing ones. In addition, childbirth entails its own physical dangers, including
excruciating pain, protracted labour (which can last for days), the possibility of cesarian delivery,
and chances of serious complications, including death. People must have access to high-quality,
evidence-based healthcare that is accessible, comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and affordable
throughout their lives, wherever they live. The right to life guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment has not limited governmental involvement in a person's choice regarding a
pregnancy or medical treatment. Even when a life-threatening condition is not present, the
constitutional decision immediately affects the woman's fundamental interest in protecting her
personal health during pregnancy and childbirth. Restrictive abortion laws have been shown to
breach a number of human rights, including the right to life, and are associated with high rates of
unsafe abortion and maternal mortality. If a person's life or health is in danger or if continuing
the pregnancy to term will cause them great pain or suffering, the state must at the very least
offer safe, legal, and accessible access to abortion. Trying to understand, and ultimately support
women who want later abortions of pregnancy is the goal of theorizing about time in abortion
legislation and human rights. Why it is moral, ethical, or just to prevent a woman from having an
abortion at 24 weeks, 22 weeks, 18 weeks, or 12 weeks cannot be explained by human rights
law. The goal of abortion law should be to achieve true compassion in the most difficult
situations, when morality, health, and justice are calling for it most strongly, rather than to cause
women any more suffering or burdens. Furthermore, the right to life must safeguard reproductive
autonomy since choices regarding pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting are crucial for leading a
life with dignity and that every pregnancy has a risk of death and significant harm. (Erdman,
2017)
Instead, too many states adopt laws that restrict people's choices and access to medical
care. Maternal mortality will only get worse with the move backward to criminalizing abortion,
especially for Black women and other people of colour. Generations of non-white women have
benefited from the legalization of abortion by being able to decide whether or not to have
children, engage more actively in society, and achieve higher levels of education, employment,
and financial security. (Erdman, 2017). In order to uphold the constitutional provision of equal
protection, it is also necessary to address the continued effects of institutional racism on
reproductive rights and health, which target Black women and other people of colour. (Murray,
2021). Government policies, inequities in maternity and infant health, and abortion laws all
significantly impact Black and Brown populations. It would constitute legal justification to apply
this allegation to equal protection and reproductive rights situations. The criteria include: 1) the
challenged law or decision's historical context; 2) the circumstances surrounding it; 3) deviations
from substantive norms; 4) the administrative or legislative history; 5) and whether there is a
disproportionate effect on one race compared to another. The impact of these state policies on
Black women and persons of colour must be considered by the courts. Thus, given that these
problems do not affect men in the same way at all, they have advised that states pay special
attention to the maternal health requirements of vulnerable groups of women, such as
adolescents, poor, minority, rural, and women with disabilities. (Murray, 2021)
Laws or policies that permit the state or others to interfere with reproductive decisions in
order to "protect" women, as opposed to accepting that women are equally capable of making
such decisions. This includes laws or policies relating to contraception, abortion, and childbirth.
The idea that once a person becomes pregnant, the government has the right to regulate their
body is the foundation for abortion laws and other coercive government acts that are wrongly
justified by the government's interest in potential life. One of the most frequent justifications
given by women for terminating pregnancies is a lack of financial resources. Despite this, the
United States is one of the richest countries without a national paid family leave policy, and
several states continue to impose "family caps" that reduce benefits for additional children born
into low-income families. Furthermore, many of the states that frequently pass laws restricting
abortion also fail to pass laws that would promote safe and healthy pregnancies, births, and
newborn and child health, such as refusing to expand Medicaid postpartum coverage T. he ability
to decide if, when, and how many children to have is very important to sex equality. (Erdman,
2017). Low-income individuals frequently lack the freedom to choose whether, when, or how to
become parents and securely nurture their existing children. Reproductive autonomy is
fundamental to very personal choices about starting families and having relationships, thus
courts must make sure that those with limited resources or living in poverty can exercise their
freedom to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. Courts should examine
any laws that deny persons on low incomes of decisional autonomy, dignity, and nondiscriminatory healthcare during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum in addition to the effects of
abortion restrictions on those who live in poverty. The achievement of reproductive rights would
also be consistent with human rights law, which acknowledges the link between economic
injustice and that. Laws that forbid abortion can lead to suffering, including financial, social, and
health-related burdens and difficulties, requiring people to decide between prolonging a
pregnancy or leaving their country to get legal abortion services. (Murray, 2021)
Government control over reproductive capacity denies women and members of
marginalized groups equal standing in society. International human rights law is predicated on
the principles of equality and non-discrimination. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to
address the historical causes of gender inequality and discrimination as well as the gender roles
that have traditionally been understood. Stereotypes must be addressed and destroyed by
governments. Governments must provide modern contraception and work to reduce maternal
death rates. Governments must understand that restrictive abortion laws and regulations are
frequently based on gender prejudice and gender stereotypes. (Erdman, 2017)
In Canada, the campaign has been about increasing funding and access, whereas in the
United States, the fight has been about outright restrictions on abortion. These respective rights
battles have been advancing in opposite ways. In the Canadian setting, abortion rights are
comparatively highly protected. But it's crucial to keep in mind that rights are neither fixed nor
self-enforcing; rather, they are susceptible to political and cultural changes and depend on
institutional and normative safeguards. (Macfarlane, 2022). When compared to the United States,
the supposed leader of the free world, how can those other countries be more reformed with their
understanding and application of the right to life? (Berer, 2017)
The human right to reproductive autonomy must be respected by the government and
upheld by the courts, according to the Constitution. This right is protected by the various,
interconnected protections of life, liberty, and equal protection found in the Fourteenth
Amendment. Courts must address the impact of laws that perpetuate multiple, compounding
forms of discrimination. The courts must carefully consider the inter-relationship between race,
gender, and class. These fundamental sources all support a comprehensive legal right to
reproductive autonomy that we must all uphold for present-day society as well as for future
generations.
References
Berer, M. (2017, June). Abortion law and policy around the world: In search of
decriminalization. Health and human rights. from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473035/
Erdman, J. N. (2017, June). Theorizing time in abortion law and human rights. Health and
human rights. from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473036/
McCurdy, S. A. (2016). Abortion and public health: Time for another look. The Linacre
Quarterly, 83(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2015.1133019
Macfarlane, E. (2022). The overturning of roe v. wade: Are abortion rights in Canada
vulnerable? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 734–739.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423922000452
Murray, M. (2021). RACE-ING ROE: REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, RACIAL JUSTICE, AND
THE BATTLE FOR ROE V. WADE. Harvard Law Review, 134(6), 2025+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A658584453/AONE?u=hali76546&sid=bookmarkAONE&xid=b32c381c
Bentele, K. G., Sager, R., & Aykanian, A. (2018). Rewindingroe v. wade: Understanding the
accelerated adoption of state-level restrictive abortion legislation, 2008–2014. Journal of
Women, Politics & Policy, 39(4), 490–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2018.1511123
(Bentele et al., 2018)