The Politics of Women’s Rights in the US

Posted on 18 Nov 2021 by Rachel Tan

Disclaimer: The views expressed below are that of the individual author.

Despite the iconic suffrage movement in the US, which saw the breaking of glass ceilings, the issue of women’s rights has become the subject of increasing controversy.

Although women’s bodies, healthcare and education should arguably be ‘left’ to the ‘professionals’, this ‘article’ argues that politicians weaponise these issues – including abortion. As women’s rights are largely dependent on the political environment in the States, the corollary is that women can never be certain that their rights will be protected in the long-term. In the wake of the Trump Administration, Biden has proclaimed to re-establish protection of women’s rights as a priority and it shall be examined whether he has fulfilled his campaign promises.

Though women’s rights encompass a myriad of aspects ranging from access to contraception to childcare support, politicians tend to reduce and restrict the issue of women’s bodies and choice to the singular aspect of abortion. If politicians were genuinelyconcerned about women’s welfare, they would advocate for of improved access to obstetric care, access to and maintenance of domestic violence support and greater childcare access. Political tension instead revolves around the sole question of whether abortion should be prohibited – a question which places women and their physical autonomy at the crux of political partisanship. One’s stance on the matter has become indicative of their political views. In 1973, this tension culminated in the landmark case of Roe v Wade, where the US Supreme Court held that state control of abortion was unconstitutional as it infringed a woman’s right to privacy and liberty. Although Roe v Wade remains law, individual states are not prevented from, implementing restrictions on the right to seek abortions and education and knowledge on the matter. As of today, nine states including Alabama and Michigan, have abortion bans which will be enforced once the Court decision has been overruled. Other states such as Texas and Georgia have pursued the tightening of abortion laws by passing “heartbeat bills” which render abortions after the identification of a fetal heartbeat illegal. This phenomenon occurs about six weeks into the pregnancy, usually before a woman is even made aware of her pregnancy and therefore arguably violates the Supreme Court decision. Anti-abortion state policy is sculpted as an extension of the political and moral inclinations of governing parties, thus restrictions vary throughout the States, albeit the settled law of Roe. In direct opposition to Roe, individuals within the Republican party have campaigned to limit access to abortion and to strengthen pro-life policy. Indeed, this ‘pro-life’ stance is emblematic of one’s political views.

After the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has a conservative majority of 6-3. Article 2 of the Constitution confers on presidents the ability to nominate Supreme Court judges despite academics questioning the reason and justification for this power. Presidents have a propensity to nominate court officials holding similar political ideologies, and since 2010, all nominees by Democrat presidents have been liberal and those by Republican presidents have been conservative. The lack of independence of the law from politics allows important legal decisions to be tainted by particular moral and political values prized by individual judges. With the most recent nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy

Coney Barrett by Trump, the balance of the court has been tipped to the right, making it one step closer to a possible overrule of Roe v Wade. The volatility in policy concerning abortion is evident in the reinstatement and rescission of the Global Gag Rule (“GGR”) by different presidents throughout the years. Initiated by Ronald Reagan, the GGR disallows non-governmental organisations which receive US funding from performing abortions or disseminating information on reproduction and sexual health. This both forces NGOs to abandon healthcare and education for funding, and causes serious implications for women outside the US. After the Trump administration broadened the GGR to organisations that do not receive funding from the US government, the provision of safe, legal termination services in countries where abortion is legal is made more difficult and effectively silences international movements that seek to promote the full range of women’s rights. As a result women in other countries are deprived of accurate information about their options and are forced to resort to illegal abortions which imperil their safety. Operation-related complications and the high risk of death that follow are the glaring repercussions of a neglect of women’s health and rights. Accompanying the GGR is the ratification of the Helms Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act which poses an obstacle to the provision of US Agency for International Development funds for abortion-related ventures. The codification and institutionalisation of anti-abortion practices and beliefs as the norm could result in a violation of women’s rights and autonomy in a Western society that haughtily espouses progression and liberty. Hidden behind the face of abortion policy is the insidious political grapple between the moral, and often religious, dogma of the Republican, and the pro-choice convictions of the Democrat.

In his campaign, Biden promised to reverse the restrictions imposed on women in accessingunrestrained healthcare and information by repealing the GGR, moving towards indelibly abolishing the GGR and restoring Title X funding for family planning organisations. In Biden’s first 100 days in office, has he taken steps in pursuit of these pledges?

At the start of 2021, Biden published his presidential memorandum which ended the Trump-era disregard of women’s rights by rescinding the GGR – a move well received by reproductive rights activists and supporters. He also formed the Gender Policy Council to ensure the administration takes into account gender issues when enacting policy. Additionally, Biden has instructed that funding of the UN Population Fund, UNFPA, be reinstated. This would allow one of the UN’s most significant donors to return, conveying the positive message to women universally that the US is dedicated to the protection of their rights. However, the cessation of his enduring support for the Hyde Amendment attracted criticism from the Catholic Church. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to ban Biden from receiving Communion due to his non-compliance with the stringent Catholic repudiation of abortion. Although Biden’s actions have been applauded by many in the nation, they call for further action, such as the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the introduction ofthe Equal Rights Amendment to the American Constitution. Furthermore, the effects of the repeal of the GGR will only be noticed after several months at the soonest.

The instability of the status of women’s rights in the US arguably illuminates the view that women are wielded as puppets in a political struggle when arguably their rights should not be the subject of political controversy in the first instance. Going forward, we should listen to the voices of women and science, instead of politicians lacking the medical expertise to determine the choices women can and cannot make.

Heading picture source: Erin Aniker Illustrations.

Share on: