Introduction
After 51 years, the issue and debate on abortion is only intensifying, brought on by the U.S. Supreme Courts June 2022 "Dobbs" decision that overruled their January 1973 "Roe" decision which legalized abortion nationally.
Collectively, as independent journalists, we thought it would be a good time to take a look at this issue, going back to the very beginning, to try to see how we got to where we are today.
Before we get started, please note that this website is not associated with or supported financially, or in any other way, by any "abortion-rights" or "anti-abortion" organization, political party or organization, or religious group. Likewise, we are not supported by any wealthy individual, or individuals, that hopes to promote a particular position on this issue.
We felt that it is important to maintain independence and impartiality when reporting on this issue. By remaining unbiased and not being associated with any particular organization or political party, this website can provide an objective view of the issue that you may not hear otherwise in "main-stream media" outlets, by presenting facts and different perspectives without any external influence. We believe that this approach can help readers make informed decisions based on the information presented.
In highly polarized issues such as abortion, it can be challenging for people to listen to opposing viewpoints and engage in respectful dialogue. However, it's important to remember that understanding different perspectives can lead to more meaningful and productive conversations. It's okay to have strong beliefs, but being open to hearing and considering different viewpoints can help build empathy and understanding, and ultimately lead to more constructive discussions and solutions.
To get this report right, we knew we had to put aside our own particular biases on this issue and to follow the facts, as best we could, wherever that took us. We realized that that is not always an easy thing to do. In the end, we felt that it was more important to report what we believe to be factual information, and to let our readers decide for themselves.
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, established a woman's constitutional right to abortion. The decision held that the right to an abortion is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's interest in protecting the health of the woman and the potentiality of human life.
If you read the actual text of the "Roe" decision, which we provide on this site, the restrictions are somewhat vague. Is, or is not, the right to abortion an absolute right? When they speak of allowing abortion for the "health" of the mother, what exactly do they mean? Are they talking about just the mother's physical health? What about her mental or emotional health, or any other factors that some would say relates to "health?" It should be noted that the three trimester "framework" of restrictions established in the original Roe decision were ruled by the Supreme Court in 2013 (Casey vs Planned Parenthood) to be inadequate and were thrown out, though the overall right of a woman to have an abortion was upheld.
We explore the "Roe" decision, and at least six other Supreme Court abortion related decisions, at our "Supreme Court Decisions" page, including the "Doe vs Bolton" decision which was handed down on the same day as "Roe," but is hardly ever mentioned in the media.
It should be noted that the restrictions established in the Roe v. Wade decision were for the most part, not highly specific. Some would say the restrictions were actually quite vague, but you can decide for yourselves, since we further explore these questions, and present the full text of the "Roe" decision on this website.
What most people may be unaware of, is that the same day the Supreme Court decided the "Roe vs Wade" decision, which legalized abortion nationally, another abortion related decision, Doe v. Bolton, was also decided. The "Doe" decision actually clarified, and had a great impact, on the restrictions established in "Roe." Surprisingly, the "Doe vs Bolton" decision is often overlooked in discussions of abortion rights. This is the first big "take away" that we discovered. The Doe decision established a broader definition of "health" (as a reason to allow for an abortion) that included not only physical health, but also emotional, psychological, and familial health. We look more into the Doe decision and the impact it had with the Roe decision on this website as well.
In the "Doe" decision, the Court held that a woman's health includes all factors that are relevant to her well-being, and that a decision to have an abortion should be based on the woman's individual circumstances. This definition of "health" effectively invalidated many of the restrictions on abortion that were established in Roe v. Wade, as it allowed women to seek abortions for a wide range of reasons beyond those related to their physical health. You can access the full text of the "Doe vs Bolton" decision here.
Since Roe was established in 1973, many states have attempted to add some restrictions to having an abortion. Practically all of their efforts failed since lower courts would ultimately refer to the Roe decision as the "law-of-the-land." Of course, that changed on June 24, 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in their "Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization" decision, reversed their original "Roe vs Wade" decision. The Court cited five main reasons for making their decision, which we will delve into more at this website.
It should be noted that the Dobbs decision did not outlaw abortion, but it did allow states to place restrictions on abortion. To those (pro-choice) who support abortion rights, this is unacceptable. They believe states should not have the right to restrict abortion, that abortion is essential "healthcare," that it gives a woman control over her own health decisions and autonomy, and that the decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one that should be left to the individual woman, and not the government. They also say that restricting or banning abortion would force women to resort to unsafe and potentially life-threatening methods of terminating a pregnancy, which could result in serious injury, or possibly even death.
Those (pro-life) who favor some restrictions to abortion say that when Roe was decided in 1973, almost all of the states individually had already debated the issue and put into place meaningful restrictions, which resulted in the majority of the states passing laws saying that abortion was a crime, but that the Roe decision invalidated all those laws. Because of the Dobbs decision, they say both sides of this issue can now present their positions, have meaningful dialogue, and possibly pass meaningful legislation. The main point that they make is that they believe abortion kills a living human being (fetus) that should have a "right to life," and that abortion is morally wrong. They contend that society has a duty to protect the lives of the vulnerable and the unborn, and that abortion represents a failure to uphold this duty. They also object to taxpayer funding for abortion, arguing that it forces them to support a practice that they find morally objectionable. They say that there should be "meaningful restrictions" in place to govern the practice of abortion.
The ability for the public to voice their opinions and engage in the legislative process on important issues is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, and some admit, both those in favor and opposed to abortion, that the original 1973 Roe decision took away that ability.
Those who oppose the Dobbs decision (reversal of the "Roe" decision) argue that the original Roe decision gave women access to abortion and that that right should not be taken away, even if the decision itself may have been decided "inappropriately," as the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an outspoken advocate for "abortion rights," had expressed concerns about, and they give a very convincing argument that individual rights, including those related to privacy and bodily autonomy, should not be, as they describe it, "turned back" to the states to decide.
Those who support the Dobbs decision (allowing abortion restrictions) argue that Supreme Court decisions should always be based on legal principles and the interpretation of the Constitution, and that the Court should make rulings based on established legal procedures that the Court has been given authority to use, and not dictate new laws that are not based or found in the constitution. They also give a very convincing argument that a "unique, living human being (fetus) is killed through abortion," and that the Court played an "activist" role, as opposed to an "interpretive" role (of the constitution) when deciding Roe.
(START ABOVE)
and was based on flaws on the legal or constitutional basis used to establish the "right" to abortion.
That is how our government works best and was designed to function.
Since the June 2022 "Dobbs" decision, many abortion related bills and laws have been enacted in numerous states. As well, citizens and legislators in a number of different states are actively promoting their position, both for and against abortion, through proposed legislation, ballot initiatives, and similar efforts. As of September 1st, 2023, here's where we are:
For those in favor of "abortion rights," seven states now have abortion laws that, on record, are less restrictive, and actually more liberal, on abortion than the original Roe decision. These seven states (Alaska, Washington, D.C., Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont) have "codified" Roe through legislation that have no posted gestational limits (of the fetus). Additionally, 14 more states have passed legislation that allows for abortion up until "viability" (around 24-28 weeks) of the fetus, or at the third-trimester. Since all these states have stated that they uphold the original Roe decision, which would include the "health" exception as clarified in the "Doe vs Bolton" abortion decision, that brings the total number of states to 21 that will allow abortion after viabilty of the fetus, even though only those seven states we mention above actually admit that publicly in the legislation they have passed.
. or on paper. Approximately XX% of all abortions in the nation are done in these 21 states, so not a lot has really changed since the Dobbs decision in reducing the number of abortions done each year in the nation.
For those who favor restrictions, of varying degrees, on abortion, 14 states have passed legislation which bans practically all abortions. An additional 12 states have passed legislation which include bans to abortion after six weeks or up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Legislation passed in six of those 12 states are currently blocked in court from taking effect.
The current "tally" since the Dobbs decision is: 21 states enacted laws that retained Roe, or allows more access to abortion than the original Roe decision, and 26 states that have passed legislation more restrictive than Roe.
Interactive Map -CURRENT AS OF MAY 2023 - Guttmacher:
https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/alaska/abortion-policies
Source, New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html
Source: Guttmacher: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
Tracking where abortion bans are and how many abortions per state, as of 2020:
Link from CDC - keep handy for basic facts:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm
WIKIPEDA REport: CDC vs Guttmacher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
We plan to delve into many aspects of this issue, and check on claims that are made by those on both sides. As we move forward, we hope to get answers to many tough questions for those on both sides of this issue, and to share those responses on this website.
We are extremely grateful to everyone who contributed to this website in any way. We plan to continually add new content to this website, so we encourage you to periodically visit this site. As well, we seek and welcome the submission of factual informative that can be verified, as well as thought-provoking articles and information related to the issue of abortion, and to make that information available on this site.
Back to the home page.
