Given the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weaken or overturn the historic decision in the Roe v. Wade, who legalized abortion, activists and the two main political parties in the United States prepare for a new battle over one of the cultural issues that has divided the country for a long time.
It is the state legislatures, not the Supreme Court judges, who will have the most power to decide on abortion and determine the ease or difficulty of accessing the procedure. Many lawmakers will be forced to argue over the most intimate details of transvaginal ultrasounds, conception and exactly when life begins.
Newer issues, such as disputes over telemedicine and abortion pills, may gain new political relevance as patients look for ways to bypass restrictions by controlling their own abortions.
After the Supreme Court’s oral arguments last Wednesday in the Mississippi case, the two parties appear to be in agreement on at least one thing.
“This could be a big point, a seismic shakeup in abortion policy,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List organization, which supports anti-abortion candidates and campaigns against politicians who advocate for procedural rights in elections across the country. parents.
The Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision next June or July, months before parliamentary elections that will determine who controls Congress and will shape the future of President Joe Biden’s agenda.
The result that the judges pointed out during the interrogation — the restriction of constitutional protections to abortion under the Roe v. Wade or even the complete dismantling of that pattern—should lead to a reckoning for abortion rights advocates.
Democrats fear that they may soon face a more urgent struggle waged in each state to preserve as many protections as possible; thus, they are planning new campaigns to control the state legislatures. Many felt they were already on the defensive, given the conservative majority in the Supreme Court and the flurry of restrictions that have been passed in some states. For some activists, regaining these rights will likely require decades of campaigning.
“We need to start helping people understand what it will take to regain these rights,” says Destiny Lopez, co-chair of abortion rights All* Above All. God help me. It will be at least another 15 or 20 years.”
For opponents of the practice, a victory in the Supreme Court would be the culmination of decades of work carried out from the states to the White House to limit abortion rights. Activists said that while much remains to be done — restricting online access to abortion-inducing drugs, funding more services for women facing unwanted pregnancies — it is possible that a certain degree of self-indulgence will pervade the movement, a spirit of ” we already won”.
“There will be those who sing victory and walk away,” says Tom McClusky, president of the March for Life Action, which lobbies against abortion. “Most donors want to fund a fight. Donors want to fund warriors, not Samaritans.”
Activists on both sides say they envision struggles that will look very different depending on the state.
In California, New York and others with a Democratic majority, abortion rights advocates should campaign to expand access to the practice, harnessing new technologies such as telehealth, increasing coverage of the procedure through health insurance, and creating resources to cover the costs incurred by women who have to travel to other states to have an abortion.
But in places like Alabama, conservatives are expected to fight for new laws and policies aimed at closing any loopholes that would still make abortion possible. At the same time, they should increase support for women facing an unforeseen pregnancy.
Mini Timmaraju, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, one of the best-known organizations that advocate the right to procedure, says his group hoped to persuade the Democratic Party to take a more aggressive stance, starting with plans to step up pressure on Congress and candidates to support a bill that seeks to enshrine abortion rights in federal law. The measure passed the House in September, but under current legislative rules, it has little chance of becoming law.
The organization also intends to use the issue to pressurize national parliamentary elections, arguing that a larger Democratic majority in Congress is needed to protect access to abortion and install judges who are not hostile to that right.
“After what we have seen, it is justified to resort to everything: constitutional amendments, initiatives that go to popular vote, expansion of the Supreme Court”, says Timmaraju. “Now we need to take a step back and reflect on what the long-term agenda will be.”
Many activists want to invest more in the effort to change the position of state legislatures, arguing that they should work in the same way as social conservatives who are on the opposite side of the abortion issue.
Conservative efforts hit a new peak this year, when 106 abortion restrictions were passed in several states — the highest number since Roe vs. Wade, in 1973, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a liberal entity that monitors the evolution of legislation on women’s reproductive health.
“We’re already living in a post-Roe world,” says Lopez.
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, 26 states are likely or likely to ban legal abortion, according to Guttmacher, through laws that were passed before the case and remain viable. These are so-called triggered bans, which will go into effect automatically or following prompt state action if Roe no longer applies.
The prediction is that the Republican-government states will carefully consider how women can try to circumvent these bans. Some of them have already done so, creating a model for anti-abortion activists to follow.
In Texas, for example, text that went into effect on Thursday bans doctors and other drug providers from mailing abortion pills to women. The state also provides that a medical professional must be present when such medications are given to patients. And 18 other states do the same, making the increasingly popular option of telemedicine unfeasible.
Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates are pooling resources, doctors and volunteers to help people travel to other states for the procedure. Maps of “welcoming”, “intermediate” and “at risk” states are being drawn up.
According to the National Abortion Funds Network, these groups across the country—mostly nonprofits operated by volunteers— disbursed $9.4 million in 2020, while in 2017 they had spent $4 million.
Texas, again, offers a preview of what the landscape might look like.
Recently passed law in the state prohibits abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. Clinics in neighboring states have been flooding with patients, procedures have become more expensive, and women who cannot afford to travel are being forced to carry on with their pregnancy. The flow caused a domino effect, reducing the availability of services and leading residents of states neighboring Texas to also travel to other states to be assisted.
“Basically, those who live in the south of the country need to go to Illinois, Virginia and Colorado [mais ao norte] to have an abortion,” says Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman’s Health, which operates abortion clinics in Texas and three other states.
.
