It's 2022 but human rights, and in particular women's rights, are constantly under threat. Terrifying stories of rapes and femicides happening all over the world are constantly on the news, while yesterday was a dark day for American history. The Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade case, trampling on women's rights to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
With Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. The case was brought by Norma McCorvey - known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe"- who, pregnant with her third child in 1969, wanted an abortion. As she lived in Texas, where the procedure was illegal except when necessary to save the mother's life, her attorneys filed a lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional.
The new decision states that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and, as a consequence, 26 states will be banning abortion immediately or as soon as possible.
This is shocking considering that the majority of Americans are actually in favour of the procedure and that, quite often, the most outspoken pro-lifers also seem to have a passion for firearms. The blame should go to 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, who pro-choice before being elected, confirmed three Supreme Court Justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) while he was in power, ensuring the court would lean conservative. The decision to overturn the landmark is a display of male power and control, plus a way for Republicans to win the votes of Christians as they did in the '70s and create a sort of moral majority, rather than a political majority.
"It's a sad day for the court and the country," US President Joe Biden said from the White House. "With Roe gone, the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk."
Former First Lady of the US Michelle Obama issued a statement in which she said she was "heartbroken", but urged people to get up and find the courage to keep working towards a more just America, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced, "On this issue the Supreme Court does not get the last word, the people do. And we are going to fight back."
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, highlighted how the decision represented a contradiction for the court as the day before they said states cannot make laws governing the constitutional rights to bear arms, while yesterday they said the exact reverse. "The hypocrisy is raging, but the harm is endless," she stated, calling the decision "an insult and a slap in the face to women about using their own judgment to make their own decision about their reproductive freedom."
While marches were organized all over the US, world leaders reacted, calling the abortion ruling a backwards step. Anger at the decision reached also the Glastonbury stage where Billie Eilish condemned the overruling, dedicating her song "Your Power" to what had happened.
The undemocratic decision will hit hard millions of women, especially those ones not wealthy enough to go somewhere else and have an abortion. Thoughts go to all those women who were booked to have an abortion and who may not be able to do so, or who may have to borrow money and go to another state to have an abortion.
As we all know, prohibiting doesn't make something go away, it just drives it underground. In the case of abortion, it is unthinkable to go back to pre-Roe v Wade times when women would have unsafe abortions and risked to die to preserve the right to control their destinies.
The decision of the Supreme Court is also surprising as it doesn't seem to take into account official reports on pregnancies and abortions. The United Nations Population Fund issued a statement explaining that, "Data show that restricting access to abortion does not prevent people from seeking abortion, it simply makes it more deadly." According to the UNFPA's 2022 State of World Population report, "nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended, and over 60 per cent of these unintended pregnancies may end in abortion. A staggering 45 per cent of all abortions around the world are unsafe, making this a leading cause of maternal death."
Now there are tangible fears this decision will encourage other targets as conservative Justice Clarence Thomas hinted at contraception, gay marriage and LGBTQ rights. Another appalling consequence of this decision may be the fact that this will encourage anti-abortion activists and politicians in other countries too. Roe v Wade inspired indeed other countries to make abortion legal; its overruling will empower anti-abortion voices everywhere, threatening reproductive freedom and the safety of women (bear in mind that there are countries such as Turkey where women's rights activists already risk arbitrary long prison sentences or even lynching for their fights against domestic violence and femicides and for campaigning for the right to work, access to education, the possibility of divorce or the termination of a relationship and the right to self-determination over one's own life...).
Women are at the centre of the fashion industry that has therefore often expressed its support of women's reproductive rights. In May, when a Supreme Court document threatening the abolition of Roe v. Wade was leaked, Gucci promised the company would provide travel reimbursement to any U.S. employee who needs access to health care not available in their home state.
But there are other companies opting for this solution, including Gap, Estée Lauder and Condé Nast. In May, Levi Strauss & Co. issued a statement similar to Gucci's, highlighting that its employees are "eligible for reimbursement for healthcare-related travel expenses for services not available in their home state, including those related to reproductive health care and abortion."
Gucci's Cruise 2020 collection also featured a "My Body My Choice" jacket and designs with the date "22.5.78," referring to the day the Italian statute 194 about the social protection of motherhood and the voluntary interruption of pregnancy was established.
Other figures in the fashion industry may lend a hand to support legal abortion, including influencers and models. Books have recently been appearing in a lot of pictures of celebrities and influencers (some claim there are even book stylists who suggest to their clients which books they should be seen carrying around...).
It would be good to see more pictures of people carrying feminist novels and essays (well, obviously, rather than just carrying them it would be better if we read them first...). An inspiring, obvious choice, remains Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale".
The Canadian author actually auctioned an unburnable edition of "The Handmaid's Tale" in June. The special edition of the book was created to anticipate the possibility of the US Supreme Court ruling reversing the right to abortion.
Atwood's book - the story of Offred, one of the Handmaids of the fictitious supremacist, totalitarian state known as the Republic of Gilead, who are forced to provide children by proxy for infertile women of a higher social status, the wives of Commanders - was rediscovered thanks to its TV adaptation starring Elisabeth Moss. "Handmaid" costumes, red cloaks with white headdresses, have become a familiar sight at protests for reproductive and women's rights.
According to the American Library Association, "The Handmaid's Tale" is among books most often challenged or banned in US schools. Put on auction at Sotheby’s the fire-resistant edition of the book, designed to protect this vital story and stand as a powerful symbol against censorship, was sold on 7th June for $130,000 (all proceeds went to Pen America).
But there's food for thought that may prompt us to ponder about abortion, and then stand up and act also in Atwood's new collection of essays, "Burning Questions".
In the book, Atwood compares enforcing childbirth to slavery, but also wonders why the state that forces women to give birth, then abandons them. "Women who cannot make their own decisions about whether or not to have babies are enslaved because the state claims ownership of their bodies and the right to dictate the use to which their bodies must be put," Atwood writes. "If the state is mandating enforced childbirth, why should it not pay for prenatal care, for the birth itself, for postnatal care, and – for babies who are not sold off to richer families – for the cost of bringing up the child? And if the state is very fond of babies, why not honour the women who have the most babies by respecting them and lifting them out of poverty? If women are providing a needed service to the state – albeit against their wills – surely they should be paid for their labour. If the goal is more babies, I am sure many women would oblige if properly recompensed. Otherwise, they are inclined to follow the natural law: placental mammals will abort in the face of resource scarcity."
Comments