Dobbs for Dummies

The Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Case for Dummies
What happened and didn’t happen in Dobbs?

Introduction

This article is intended to be a snapshot of this decision for people who may not understand what has happened in the last few weeks. I have had numerous conversations, as have many of you, and I tried to hear what others are saying. I have found that the ruling itself is misunderstood, and the reaction to the ruling is misunderstood, and I wanted to write down some thoughts about it all. I do not pretend to be un-bias. I will use the language of a body growing in the womb throughout this article. Simply because it is offensive to say baby to some and offensive to say fetus to others.

Before the Ruling - What was the law and what effect did it have?

Roe vs Wade was a landmark case in 1973 where the Supreme Court decided that every state was mandated to allow termination of the body growing inside the womb all the way up until the time of viability outside of the womb.

States who believed that bodies growing in the womb were still human and deserved protection before they would be viable outside of the womb were not allowed to put laws that expressed their values in place.

63+ million abortions occurred in the 49 years Roe was the law of the land

Many people, men and women, in the United States, did not believe that women destroying the body growing inside of them was a moral good for society. And many actively campaigned to end the practice. They also set up pregnancy resource centers that cared for mothers in distress who wanted to have their children. These same people led the way in adopting children. These people have prayed and campaigned for years to stop (or at least slow) the amount of abortions in the United States.

What did Mississippi do?

By a vote of 73-34, Mississippi put a law in place that banned abortions after 15 weeks. The governor then signed this law and it became the law for their state. The law allowed exceptions for the life of the child or the life of the mother but did not offer exceptions for rape or incest, other than the pregnant woman would have over three months (15 weeks) to terminate the pregnancy. Just to give some perspective this 15 week allowance would be one of the most progressive laws in Europe. As an example, Spain and France are 14 weeks and Germany and Poland have made abortion pretty much illegal.

Did Christians sue and bring the case before the Supreme Court?

No, it was the person who owned and operated the abortion business that sued and brought the matter before the higher court. One could say that the Mississippi government hoped the Supreme Court would pick it up, but it was actually the Pro-abortion group that brought the case before the appellate court, and then it was picked up by the Supreme Court. The state of Mississippi was the defendant, Dobbs in particular was chosen because he was the Dr. who leads Mississippi’s health department and ultimately oversaw the only abortion clinic in the state.

What was the ruling?

The court ruled that the Supreme Court did not have the right to dictate/mandate states to allow bodies growing inside women to be terminated. The majority ruled that Roe was unconstitutional and that it was an overreach by the Supreme Court to make Roe the defacto law for every state. The ruling was 6-3 and there are numerous opinions written on it by the Supreme Court Jurists.

What was not in the ruling?

The majority decision did not outlaw abortion. The court ruled that each state would be able to determine for themselves if terminating bodies growing in wombs was ethical, right, and good and could make laws accordingly.

Is this an anti-democratic authoritarian ruling?

I guess it depends on your definition. But, in this particular case, the opposite seems to be true. In the ruling itself, the justices took away the federal mandate for abortion and returned this decision to the local lawmakers who are elected by voters and communities. The Roe decision was not something enacted by the elected part of our government that makes laws, the legislative branch. Instead, the decision was taken out of their hands by the unelected judicial branch.

States are still able to allow women to terminate the bodies growing inside of them. The state legislators may make laws reflecting the values of their communities. It would seem that one of the side effects of the ruling is that more progressive states can actually have even more lenient abortion policies than before.

Does Planned Parenthood need to close?

No, the ruling did not have anything directly to do with Planned Parenthood or its origins. According to many Planned Parenthood reports only 3% of the services they offered are abortions. It would seem their work with contraceptives and other women’s services may prove even more valuable in communities where abortion is not allowed. Planned Parenthood has received government assistance for these non-abortion services for years, I imagine they will continue to receive these funds. It is possible they could receive even more funds from states that do not allow them to perform abortions to help their citizens refrain from getting pregnant.

But, if we are being honest, my friend and pro-life advocate Spring Tart reminded me that “their 3% abortion number is and has always been false. They count each item on their list of services as a "service". So, every birth control packet, every STI screening, every abortion, etc. is counted as a service item, regardless of the cost difference. So, if PP completes 10 million "services" in a year and "only" 300.000 of those are abortions, there's your 3%. Planned Parenthood closes their doors because their profit margin and abortion quotas are not met.”

So, maybe it will drastically affect them after all.

Does this endanger the lives of women?

It is possible that a state could not offer a provision in their abortion law for the life of the mother. However, so far, each state has offered some sort of exception for the life of the mother and most have offered some sort of exception for rape and incest. One could also say that the millions of unborn women whose lives were in danger are now a little safer because of this ruling.

One could also say that the effects of terminating bodies takes a toll on women. Post-abortive women (as well as abortion industry workers) have an above-normal rate of depression, suicidal ideation, drug use, self harm, etc.

Why are women/people so upset?

History has often been Patriarchal and for many, the Roe decision, along with the right to vote, marked hallmarks for the empowerment of women. For these people, the decision symbolized that a woman was valuable and could be trusted to make moral decisions. So, for some women, this feels like they have lost some of the empowerment and equality they believed they had gained.

It should be noted that a significant portion of abortions are done under duress. Women who are trafficked are forced to have abortions. And younger and sometimes older women are pressured and coerced by family members and the father of the child to terminate the pregnancy. For some, abortion promotes the suppression of women.

Some stats from a great study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: https://www.jpands.org/vol22no4/coleman.pdf

1) 73.8% of women felt pressured to abort

2) 58% aborted to make others happy

3) 38% feared losing their partner

4) 67.5% said it was the hardest decision of their life

Additionally, 61% of women say the father of the child is the most influential person during the abortion decision process. (2015 Care Net study)

And some women, certainly not all, believe that they should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. They do not recognize the body growing inside of a pregnant woman as a human with rights, and believe that these bodies should not be afforded protections by the state. They believe that every state should trust that women would be protectors of their own bodies and the bodies growing inside of them. There are also a small minority of women who do not believe there is an actual human body growing inside of a woman, but simply a growing clump of cells (tumor), that represents a potential human.

Some are also upset because they do not see this as a moral absolute. They believe there are many opinions about when life begins and they believe that the most lenient of these opinions should be just as valued as a restrictive opinion. By limiting when a growing body can be terminated you are not allowing some views of when life begins to be honored.

To be honest, many are also upset because their deeply held value is not the law of the land for everyone. The thing they believe to be a moral good, that women should have full ability to terminate the bodies growing inside of them, is no longer what every community must do. They believe that by allowing states to decide these things, instead of it being mandated by the federal government, there is a morality being forced on others. In essence, the court is allowing people who believe that these human bodies growing in the womb deserve protection, to be able to, in the areas they live in, provide them that protection. This means that they would not allow women, who do not believe the same, to terminate the bodies growing inside of them in their communities. So, in these communities, women would lose the freedom to live out their deeply held beliefs.

Perhaps the biggest reason many are upset is that they believe this puts an undue burden on women. They recognize that not only is pregnancy difficult and life-changing, but child-rearing is even more invasive. They feel for women who are overwhelmed with the sacrifices they will have to make to carry these bodies in the womb and then care for them when they are born.

Some are also upset because they believe that the political system is corrupt and that many communities who actually want women to have the right to terminate the bodies growing inside of them will not be able to make that the law. The reason for this is that they are oppressed or are not politically powerful or savvy enough to accomplish the will of the majority of voters in their community.

What should “Pro-Life” people do?

Continue to educate yourself and your children. The science today for life in the womb is remarkable. There are hundreds of resources that show the development of the human body in the mother’s womb. Have your children watch these videos. It is hard for anyone who has seen this body growing in the womb to think of it as simply a clump of cells. In pregnancy resource centers, one of the primary things they show pregnant moms are these videos and actual ultrasound photos and videos of the body in their womb. The rate for keeping the child afterward is astronomical. The science is undeniable.

In my humble opinion, this is also a unique time for “Pro-Life” people to come alongside pregnant woman, especially in red states. Abortions just became more difficult and more pregnant women may be open to keeping their babies. “Pro-Life” people should continue to pour their time, energy, and resources into pregnancy resource centers.

Affirm the women in your life. Women are created in the image of God, they are remarkable and should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

Also be aware that no one likes to feel shame. The natural human response to shame is defensiveness and blaming. Many women who have had abortions, regret it later. Especially as more science becomes available and we are able to see the body’s development in the womb, it is often more difficult for these women. So, do not be surprised if they respond defensively.

Also be aware of women who have been deeply wounded by men. Perhaps it was continual rejection, perhaps it was many slights handed down by men, or in many cases women have been abused by men. I have read as many as one in three women have been sexually abused by men and a whole other percentage have been verbally or physically abused by men. For these women, you will find an anger that cannot be explained. This ruling represents a return of powerlessness and shame. Try to treat them with compassion and understanding and pray for them to find healing. It is not God’s intention for any of his image-bearers to live in powerlessness or shame.

So be kind, be gentle, be gracious and be merciful. You never know what the person you are talking with has been through and how your words and mannerisms can bring hurt or healing. Speaking as someone who has offended many, if offending needs to happen, please make sure it is the truth that offends and not your pride and ego.

Michael ConanJuly 8, 2022