What Overturning Roe Would Mean for Our Futures

The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade was a turning point in US history—a celebratory moment where freedom triumphed and the fundamental human rights of bodily autonomy and personal choice were extended to Americans with uteruses.

The landmark decision has been one of great controversy, with efforts to overturn it starting from the time of the ruling. The confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, likely cementing a conservative Supreme Court majority for a generation, intensifies that threat. Abortion access is just one of many issues in danger—the Court’s majority also threatens LGBTQ+ rights, the Affordable Care Act, birth control access, worker protections, and environmental conservation.

It’s hard to imagine life without Roe's protections. It did much more than federally protect the right to abortion—it revolutionized gender relations and restructured American society.

Life pre-Roe was defined by severe restrictions on women, including a lack of constitutionally protected patient–physician privacy and a lack of liberty to determine personal destiny. With that restriction came inherent second-class status, threats of bodily harm, and often death from unsafe, illegal

abortions. Roe also directly impacts many transgender and gender-nonconforming people who are often erased from the conversation surrounding abortion rights.

The argument against Roe usually falls along religious (often Christian) lines based on a subjective morality that resonates with only a minority of Americans. Indeed, over 60 percent of Americans believe it should be legal in all or most cases. Those who are pro-choice herald abortion rights

“

as fundamental, while those who are anti-choice—the term “pro-life” being misleading and based on propaganda—deem it a sin.

But a safe and legal abortion is a human right; the freedom to choose the fate of your body inherently differentiates between freedom and oppression. The UN Human Rights Committee affirms that abortion is a human right and that restricting such access violates the right to life. Reproductive rights are human rights.

While Roe has been under attack for decades, the Trump administration ushered in an era of renewed action against reproductive rights. In 2016, then-candidate Trump explicitly outlined his anti-abortion beliefs and intention to appoint “pro-life” justices to

Roe did much more than federally protect the right to abortion—it revolutionized gender relations and restructured American society.

the Supreme Court, and he followed through.

Today, Roe is more of a symbol of federally ensured equality than a guarantee for reproductive justice. The decision has come to represent autonomy beyond the right to abortion—it represents freedom and gender equality more broadly.

In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey became the controlling precedent on abortion.

It upheld Roe’s core right to abortion but simultaneously granted states new power to restrict the procedure.

The biggest threats to abortion access today are these state-level restrictions and the defunding of organizations dedicated to reproductive justice, such as Planned Parenthood. Since Casey, but especially in the last decade,

“

many Republican-controlled states have enacted abortion restrictions, including sixweek bans that criminalize abortions after a fetal “heartbeat” can be detected—long before most people know they are pregnant. Overturning Roe would signal that the opinion of cisgender men is still the federal government’s top priority.

It would also open the door for more

“ restrictions, virtually eliminating legal abortion in many states. Without Roe, abortion would likely become illegal in twenty-two states; 41 percent of women of reproductive age would see their closest abortion clinics close, slashing their chances of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Women lacking money and time cannot cross state lines for abortion access. In the year following a Roe reversal, red-state clinic closures would deprive an estimated 90,000–140,000 women of access to abortion care. That could translate to an increase in self-administered abortions, some of which can cause bodily harm.

Roe has consistently taken on ideological perspectives as identity politics define the norms of civic engagement. Although the decision outlines bodily autonomy by ensuring the constitutional right to an abortion, its impact does not end there.

Overturning the decision would deal a major blow to the American economy. And while it feels reductive to condense a human rights dilemma to an economic analysis, it’s worth exploring given that many antichoice voters are fiscally conservative and haven’t considered Roe’s economic impact. Republican-aligned anti-abortion rhetoric, in working to overturn Roe through religiously based ideology, contradicts core GOP beliefs.

When Roe was decided in 1973, it revolutionized the American workforce. Not only did the number of reproductive-age women entering the workforce increase dramatically, but so did the number of women aged eighteen to twenty-four enrolling in four-year colleges and universities. Poverty and crime dropped. Access to safe and legal abortion saved lives.

When people can control their family planning, more of them will enroll in college, contribute to the workforce, and accumulate security and personal wealth. When women can fully participate, GDP rises and poverty drops. Without Roe, fewer women will contribute to economic growth.

Women denied access to abortion are six times more likely to enroll in federal assistance programs and four times more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level, statistics that remain consistent for years after giving birth.

If Republicans continue to defund and deregulate government assistance and social

welfare, overturning Roe v. Wade would expand the number of families living under the poverty line. Many of the states that passed six-week bans also restricted family planning services and assistance programs.

As abortion access remains a key issue among voters, a shift from ideological warfare to Roe’s economic impact must be emphasized.

States do not have the infrastructure to accommodate the born, and Republican-led federal initiatives work to ensure that. This disregard for post-womb life negates the term “pro-life,” especially since these cuts disproportionately affect Black families.

Access to abortion is not simply an ideological battleground. While the attack on reproductive justice is at the forefront of the decision, there are far-reaching implications for the nation if Roe is overturned. The US economy may be permanently changed—a reality that must be centered in the conversation around health care and constitutional protection.

With the right to choose comes the bodily autonomy essential to being an equal citizen. Without autonomy to choose, people with uteruses are denied the capacity to make personal decisions and lack the democratic freedom and civil rights to master their destinies.

As abortion access remains a key issue among voters, a shift from ideological warfare to Roe’s economic impact must be emphasized. Shifting from social partisanship to policy analysis may be the last chance of upholding the decision and protecting reproductive rights.

While talks of expanding the Supreme Court permeated through the Democratic Party during Barrett's nomination, President Biden avoided discussing the matter, suggesting instead to implement other judicial reforms.

Court reforms are necessary to ensure the longevity of abortion rights. Republicans acted egregiously to promote their agenda, hypocritically advancing Barrett’s confirmation mere weeks before the November election. In 2016, Republicans argued that, in an election year, the people should decide the next justice with their vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell subsequently

blocked the Obama administration from filling Justice Scalia’s seat.

McConnell also blocked appointments to many federal courts during Obama’s final two years, boasting that he was in charge—a clear sign that he doesn’t care about the will of the people. Courtpacking could be a viable step toward combating this political warfare and appointment weaponization. Better yet, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices might be the only way to combat court-related partisan warfare.

So what can Americans do to preserve reproductive rights and justice in this country? The simple answer is: act now. Vote for local, state, and federal officials who will protect reproductive rights. Call your representatives and urge them to protect Roe. Take to the streets, respond to surveys, and create and sign petitions—these actions can help legislators visualize where public sentiment lies. Donate to family support and abortion funds.

Act like the lives of your neighbors depend on it, because they do. Act like your life depends on it, because it does.

“