Sarah Greenberg

As we wrap up our blog series on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it seems logical to turn to the next big case in reproductive rights before the nine justices. Shifting from access to abortion to contraceptive care, one of the most important cases on both the reproductive rights and the religious freedom front is the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby suit and its companion case, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

These cases ask whether the contraception mandate (that all health insurance plans must include coverage for contraceptive preventive care) under the Affordable Care Act constitutes a substantial burden on religious liberty under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A decision in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga will determine whether a corporation has religious exercise rights to oppose some or all kinds of birth control.

When the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, it was a landmark moment in American history. Not only were women able to fully access an abortion and have full agency over their bodies and their health care, doctors and other medical professionals who performed these procedures were no longer acting unlawfully.

Since 1973, as access to abortion became enshrined in a woman’s experience in the United States, legislation that significantly hindered that right began to crop up. For example, in 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed, which for 37 years has blocked federal funding for abortion services. This means that women on federally administered health care plans, like Medicare, Medicaid, servicewomen, and the Indian Health Service, cannot have an abortion that is covered under an insurance plan. Combined with the unfortunate reality that many women on these plans are low-income, and that 88% of counties in the United States do not have a clinic where abortions are performed, it is clear that although Roe may be the law of the land, it is certainly not the reality of the land.

In today’s political climate, it is very easy to reduce ideas or perspective to labels or to a quick quip. Growing up in an environment where political views were pretty uniform, nuance was limited. It was in this context that I learned about “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” I accepted “pro-choice” as my view without much question or education.

It wasn’t until I moved into my freshman dorm, and the people living all around me and in my classes directly challenged my views. I understood for the first time that political views are just as unique and complex as the people who held them. So what does this have to do with Roe v. Wade?

On Wednesday, we will commemorate the 41^st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, which determined that the right to choose to have an abortion is constitutionally protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court expanded on the right to privacy that they recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the justices interpreted the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments to grant a right to privacy in marital relations under the Constitution.

Legalese aside, without the decision in Roe, it is very possible that very few women in the United States could have access to an abortion, depriving them of the agency and self-determination in their health choices and in the ownership of their lives and their future.