Something that many Americans are concerned about – especially considering the results of the Supreme Court decision in 2022 regarding Roe V. Wade as well as the results of the election, is their rights to healthcare regarding abortion. The history regarding the matter can be quite convoluted and is prevalent in the minds of many citizens.
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court made what is now considered to be a landmark decision in a 7- 2 vote in favor of “Jane Roe,” an alias for Norma McCorvey, a Texas resident. The district attorney for the issue was Henry Wade. Norma McCorvey was denied an abortion because her pregnancy did not pose an imminent threat to her life. This was very common during that time, seeing as 44 states in 1971 would refuse a person an abortion unless there was some sort of exception. The exceptions often were to save the pregnant person’s life, rape, incest, or if something was wrong with the fetus and it wasn’t viable.
The loophole, of course, was that there were certain stipulations as to whether or not said exceptions applied to the person who was pregnant. For instance, a person would have to prove in a court of law that there was rape or incest in order to obtain an abortion, and that often took a lot longer than the time period in which said person could safely get an abortion. The doctor in question, Richard Lane, didn’t think that her pregnancy fell under any of the aforementioned exceptions and thus denied her an abortion. The case made its way all the way to the Supreme Court and seven out of the nine judges ruled that the Due Process clause of the Constitution protected a pregnant person’s right to end their pregnancy.
This court case and ruling was the incentive for thousands of people across the United States to take to the streets in protest, either in favor or against. It was a monumental display from the American public of just how strongly they felt one way or the other. One instance that many people referenced and thought was applicable in terms of people’s rights to their own body was the Supreme Court case of McFall v. Shimp in 1978.
The case of McFall v. Shimp, taking place five years after the prior mention of Roe V. Wade, involved a man named Robert McFall, an asbestos worker, who was diagnosed with a rare bone marrow disease that would require a transplant. He was told that his chances of survival were slim, so he started looking for someone who would have bone marrow compatibility with him. Upon searching through all his family members, he discovered that his first cousin, David Shimp, had a high compatibility with him. He asked his cousin if he would be willing to do a transplant and, seeing as a bone marrow transplant is a highly invasive and painful procedure, Shimp declined. McFall sought a preliminary injunction that would force Shimp to submit himself to the procedure, but the judge presiding, Judge John P. Flaherty Jr, refused the request stating, “The court would not force him to subject himself to the transplant.”
When asked by McFall if it was okay to infringe upon the individual liberties of one person in order to save another person’s life, he responded with, “For our law to compel a defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn”
The reason why the case of McFall V. Shimp is so prevalent regarding this issue is because it demonstrates just how important it is for the government to protect a person’s right to their own body. In the prior quote, the judge states that if they don’t protect someone from being forced to submit to an intrusion of their body, and they let one particular instance slide, then how far are they willing to go? Precisely where would the line be drawn? This judge, and much of the American public, have the right idea when it comes to fearing what would happen if the government didn’t take measures to make sure that nobody can tell anybody what to do with their body.
One instance that sparked public outrage, especially taking place after the election, was when a man named Nick Fuentes decided to come out with the slogan, “Your Body, My Choice” in late 2024, a direct play on the slogan regarding women’s rights which is, “My Body, My Choice” Nick Fuentes has been under scrutiny for a while regarding his various extreme right-wing ideologies, and it all came to a head when he pepper-sprayed a woman and is now facing charges. This not only caused panic and anger amongst many people, but was also the incentive for violence against Nick Fuentes. To make a long story short, he was doxxed, threatened, and harassed at his residence by people claiming “Your House, Our Choice” Why does any of this matter? Obviously, nobody should condone violence or promote hurting people even if their views might be seen as objectively offensive. But it does highlight the lengths that people are willing to go to when they feel they have been given no other choice. The bottom line is, however, is that for decades, women have felt fear and dread for their lives and bodies at the hands of people who somehow managed to weasel their way into the position of legislator and are now actively trying to make people do what they see as the morally correct thing.
Something that people often fixate on is the issue regarding the morality of abortion. They also often reference the notion of “It’s not only a women’s rights issue.” What I want to say in regard to that statement is this: If this isn’t just a women’s rights problem, then show me the laws on the books regarding men’s reproductive healthcare. Where are laws regarding vasectomies, contraceptives or any type of medication for men? The answer is there is none, making it an objectively gender-based issue, which targets women the most. People will bring religion into it, their own personal anecdotes, anything they can to try and guilt somebody else into not making a particular medical decision that happens to conflict with their own personal values. Nonetheless, the only people that the decision of abortion should concern are the person who is pregnant and the doctor performing the procedure.
What people often get wrong is that places that perform abortions only perform abortions. They also double as places where other feminine health procedures can occur and in certain instances where you can just get a regular annual physical done if your provider is unavailable. Regardless of these facts, there have still been instances where people send bombs and threatening mail to abortion clinics.
People should not live in fear regarding their healthcare. They should not have to fear that some disgruntled maniac will send a bomb to their place of work and/or their doctor’s office because they find the main practice of said establishment morally objectionable. Theology aside, people have rights, and there’s no substantiation as to why any of the aforementioned behavior should be taking place, ever. This article is meant not to insult people with differing views, but to call attention to the fact that issues like this constantly affect people faced with this very difficult decision. The last thing anyone being faced with this needs is more fear for their lives and families. Anyone can have an opinion, but keep it out of other people’s healthcare. People’s lives matter more than antiquated views.
