+
upworthy
Democracy

The one question we all need to ask in the wake of the SCOTUS Dobbs decision on abortion

Losing the right to medical privacy hurts us all.

abortion, supreme court, dobbs
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right to privacy in our medical decisions.

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson, a decision that we knew was coming and that overturns 50 years of precedent in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Roe v. Wade is widely known for upholding the right to an abortion, but it also upheld an individual's fundamental "right to privacy" (in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution). In a 7-2 opinion (written by a lifelong Republican justice, for what it's worth), the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy and liberty covered the right to abortion.

In the decades since Roe, people have rehashed all kinds of questions surrounding abortion: the nature of life and personhood, bodily autonomy, the rights of the unborn and more. And in those debates, we've lost the core of what the Roe ruling was really about—the right to privacy in our medical decisions, which affects each and every one of us.

The one question we should be asking, fellow Americans, is this:


Should the government have the authority to access someone's private medical and sexual history to investigate, judge, intervene in and/or prosecute their healthcare decisions?

That's the question. That's the debate. And I don't know anyone in their right mind who would answer that question with "yes."


In the Dobbs opinion, Justice Alito wrote, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." Is it, though? Is government overreach just fine and dandy at the state level? Should elected representatives really be given the authority to determine people's medical needs? I don't think so.

Make no mistake—abortion is sometimes medically necessary to save the life of a mother or prevent undue suffering of an unborn baby. If it's sometimes necessary and the law acknowledges and allows for that, then the law would have to make the determination of whether or not it's necessary in each and every case. Not doctors, not the person carrying the baby, but representatives of the law. Investigators would have to delve into the personal, private medical records of patients to decide if an abortion was legitimate or not.

Who really wants that kind of government interference in their healthcare decisions?

If there are exceptions in state abortion laws for rape or incest, now we're looking at investigations not only into someone's medical records, but also into someone's sexual history. After all, anyone can claim they were victims of rape or incest. Such allegations are notoriously difficult to prove, so now we get 1) a slew of false accusations by women desperate to be able to get an abortion, which harms both real victims and innocent men, and 2) even more invasive investigations by the government into extremely private and painful matters.

I don't personally need a right to an abortion at this point in my life. There is almost no chance I will ever get pregnant again, and I can't imagine having an abortion even if I did. I do, however, need a right to privacy in my own medical care. That's what's being lost here.

I also don't begrudge anyone their belief that abortion is always wrong. I can actually understand how people get there, though I disagree. So by all means, debate the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of abortion all you want. Go out and hold up signs and preach to the masses and try to convince people to make different decisions. Set up pregnancy support clinics. Educate people about birth control or abstinence or whatever you believe is moral and right.

But allowing the government to legislate it is wrong. After all, the question of when life begins is fundamentally a religious or philosophical question, and we live in a country where we do not establish a religion. (It's literally in the first line of the First Amendment of the Constitution. And besides that, abortion access is a religious requirement in some faiths, so religious arguments for and against access are moot, legally speaking.)

We don't live in a black-and-white world. Every single pregnancy is a unique situation with a million different variables. Speaking in generalities is simple, but individual cases are nuanced and complex. Should the 11-year-old who has been raped and impregnated by her brother be forced to carry and bear his child when her own body hasn't even reached full maturity? Should the mother whose water broke prior to viability and who has a life-threatening infection, necessitating an abortion to save her life, now have to go through a painful investigative process to determine whether she's a criminal under the law? Should a pro-life Congressman with means be able to access abortion for the mistress he impregnated because he can afford it, all while trying to remove access for the rest of us?

You could say those are exceptions, but who makes that determination? Who gets to say what counts as an exception or not? Who gets to decide the criteria and determine who meets that criteria? Politicians most of us wouldn't trust to watch our dog? Is that really what we want from our government?

And what about the notion that abortion bans save lives? Do the lives of pregnant women not count? Not only will people risk their lives seeking dangerous unregulated abortions, but we could also see an increase in suicides in women who feel trapped in an impossible situation. In El Salvador, where abortion is banned with no exceptions, 3 out of 8 maternal deaths—more than one-third of mothers who die—are pregnant teens who die by suicide. Please read that twice.

The U.S. also has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations. And Texas specifically, where some of the most stringent abortion laws are being enacted, topped the developed world for maternal mortality as of 2014. Pregnancy and childbirth are not without risk, especially in this country.

But none of that, sadly, is even relevant to the central question:

Should the government be granted the authority to dive into someone's private medical and sexual history to investigate, judge, intervene in and/or prosecute their healthcare decisions?

Or more specifically:

Should the government—the random fellow citizens we elect on occasion—be granted the authority to access someone's personal medical and sexual history to determine the circumstances of a pregnancy and judge whether the healthcare decisions surrounding it are valid?

The answer is no. Obviously, no.

At this point in my life, I don't need the right to an abortion. But I do need the right to privacy in my personal healthcare decisions. We all do. That's what Roe guaranteed. That's what we have lost.

The grandmother was suspicious.

A grandmother always felt her middle granddaughter Lindsay, 15, looked slightly different from the rest of the family because she had blonde, curly hair, while the rest of her siblings’ hair was dark “I thought genetics was being weird and I love her,” she wrote on Reddit’s AITA forum.

But things became serious after Linday’s parents “banned” her from taking things a step further and getting a DNA test. If the family was sure their daughter was theirs, why would they forbid her from seeking clarity in the situation? After the parents laid down the law, the situation started to seem a little suspicious.

“I told my son and [daughter-in-law] that there was something fishy around her birth she needed to know. They denied it and told me to leave it alone,” the grandma wrote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Health

Follow Bill Nye’s lead and use science to quiet pro-lifers

“Be objective about this. We have other problems to solve, everybody.”

Bill Nye "The Science Guy"

With Donald Trump threatening to reverse Roe v. Wade upon taking office, the need to defend women's reproductive rights has never been more urgent. As other writers have pointed out, pro-life fanatics have the power of positive connotation on their side and use this advantage to demean the valid arguments of pro-choice advocates.

I mean, who would ever claim to be in opposition to life? Only, equating zygotes with adult human beings fails to recognize the science behind conception, as Bill Nye points out in an older video that has recently gained new relevancy.

Keep ReadingShow less

Double H Canine Academy in Louisville, Kentucky is a place where dog owners can take their rambunctious pets and have them turned into respectable members of the family.

However, as you can tell in this hilarious video, not all dogs are meant to follow orders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joy

Couple who visited all 63 US national parks names which one is the ‘best’

They also listed other awards, such as "most underrated," "most epic" and "most awe-inspiring."

Representative Image from Canva

There's a reason they call it "America The Beautiful."

Longing to visit one of America’s many national parks, and not sure where to start? One traveling couple just made deciding a whole heck of a lot easier.

Matt and Karen Smith have been to all of them. That’s right. All 63 of them. They even survived a plane crash to hit the milestone (more on that later).

In a short and sweet 30-second video posted to their Instagram account, Matt and Karen place certain parks into special categories, like “best wildlife sightings,” “most underrated,” and “most awe inspiring,” all before revealing which park, in their opinion, is “the best of everything.”

Keep ReadingShow less

Tawny Platis's voice acting demonstration is blowing people's minds.

In the age of television, radio, and the internet, we hear voices all the time, pretty much everywhere we go. From advertisements to customer service prompts to video narrations, voiceovers have become so commonplace that we don't give them much thought.

That is, until we see someone actually doing those voices we're so accustomed to hearing.

Professional voice actor Tawny Platis shared a video to her Tiktok demonstrating 10 voices most of us will instantly recognize, and it's as uncanny as it is impressive. She seamlessly transitions from a text-to-speech voice to a "detached casual conversation" voice to a bright "We've got denim for the whole family!" department store voice and more.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pop Culture

Insiders share 'secrets' the average person doesn't know about their industries

From accessing paywalled studies to getting free upgrades, people in various industries are spilling the beans.

Canva

There's a lot of behind the scenes info most of us don't know.

One strange reality of life is that there's a lot that happens behind the scenes of…well, everything…that people simply never know about. I'm not talking about deep state conspiracies here or anything, just normal run-of-the-mill industry secrets that only people who work in those industries knows.

Some of these "secrets" are actual secrets meant to be kept sacred, like how certain magic tricks work. Some are things we don't really want to know, like how the sausage gets made. And some are simply things that industry folks know but don't bother to inform the rest of us about, like the fact that the average movie theater employee really doesn't give a hoot if you sneak in candy as long as you're not obvious about it.

We're all curious, though, about what goes on in the back room, behind the counter, under the radar, etc. So when someone on Reddit asked "What industry 'secret' do you know that most people don’t?" people flocked to answer—and to see what people said.

Keep ReadingShow less