For the past sixty years, abortion has been a hotly debated topic in the United States — but in light of the 2024 election, it is one of the most crucial domestic issues for our country to address.
Due to its controversial and sensitive nature, discussions of abortion access have often been brushed aside or silenced in the name of politeness. However, as the death toll rises higher and millions of women lose their autonomy, this pattern cannot persist.
On the personal level, the choice of whether or not to seek an abortion should be determined by the individual’s own circumstances, medical needs, and personal beliefs. On the national level, abortion is a right that should not be denied to all due to the objections of particular religious and political groups.
Following the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, abortion has been portrayed as a states’ rights issue. “Whatever [the states] decide must be the law of the land,” stated president-elect Donald Trump on his privately-owned platform Truth Social — “In this case, the law of the state.” Conservative arguments have cited the United States’ cultural diversity as a justification for state-by-state legislature: what works for California may not work for Mississippi, they argue.
The loss of this federal constitutional protection enables individual states to decide the legality of abortion for themselves, a decision with grave consequences: fourteen states have almost fully banned abortion, while four states remain in flux. These bans have caused unthinkable tragedies, such as a 12-year-old rape victim forced to give birth to her rapist’s baby and a woman forced to carry a stillborn baby to term.
In the mere two years since the overturn, maternal fatalities in states with abortion bans are 62% higher than in states where abortion access is protected, a disparity which is bisecting our country.
States’ rights are currently prioritized over human rights, and the red-and-blue maps that dominate the news document two very different realities for women in America — but this is not the first time that the issue of states’ rights has caused such division.
Since the Constitutional Convention of 1787, American politics have been split into warring factions of Federalists and anti-Federalists. These names are rarely mentioned in the 21st century and the attached political parties are now obsolete. Nevertheless, this dichotomy persists as politicians divide themselves into opposing camps: those who want important laws to be decided by a central authority and those who want states to have the independence to decide for themselves.
The Civil War, which sought to eradicate the human rights-abomination of American slavery, provided an important contribution to this discussion — namely, it confronted the question, “do human rights end at state lines?” The conclusion was a resounding “no,”, affirming that slavery was unconstitutional and could not be tolerated by the U.S. government simply because a state voted to legalize it.
Abortion access and slavery are vastly different topics which should not be equated or compared. However, the Civil War provides important precedent that should be considered today as Americans discuss “States’ rights issues” such as abortion, prison labor, gun control, and the death penalty.
Human rights shouldn’t be compromised at state lines. If the government considers something a “fundamental right,” as abortion was deemed under Roe v. Wade, that right should not be provided or revoked at the whims of a state.
One moment in the Roe v. Wade trial poignantly encapsulated this idea: when Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd remarked that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion has already made her choice, SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart exclaimed, “Maybe she makes a choice when she decides to live in Texas!”
As this sarcastic comment expressed, it is ludicrous for women in red states to have fewer rights than women in blue states, despite belonging to the same nation. The U.S. is a union of states, not a collection of separate powers, and we must act as such — especially when human autonomy is on the line.
