Akron case a lesson in local abortion regulations that could arise

State, federal government not the only level where threat to abortion access could occur

(Photo courtesy Norma Goldberger, one of the plaintiffs in the Akron case. More of her story will appear in my forthcoming book about abortion rights)

While much of the focus has been on what state and federal lawmakers will do in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s overturning, not much attention has gone to what may happen at the local level insofar as city and borough councils are concerned. 

Recently, in the New York Times, antiabortion activists indicated that they would try to make headway in Democratic cities and communities. If abortion becomes a matter regulated by elected officials, that means it could be controlled through activities at all levels of government, including those on the lowest rung. 

That’s not without precedent. In 1983, the Supreme Court heard Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. Five years earlier, city council members in Akron passed ordinances that changed abortion laws. The most controversial provisions of the ordinances were that a woman had to tell her husband or parents when she planned on having an abortion. Doctors had to inform them that the fetus had human features and that terminating a pregnancy might cause her psychological problems. And women had to wait for 24-hours after first getting a referral to get an abortion. 

The ordinance passed by one vote. It became the model for laws in 20 states, and so its establishment and constitutionality were of great concern to both the abortion rights and antiabortion movement.  

The Supreme Court struck down several of the provisions enacted by the Akron council including the requirement for a 24-hour wait period and parental consent. Also struck down were the need to disclose certain information during the informed consent process as well as requiring disposal of fetal remains and hospitalization for second-trimester abortions. At the same time, the court upheld a Missouri parental consent law because it was more lenient. It allowed the juvenile woman to get permission from a judge if she didn’t want to tell her parent. Other states could follow suit. 

That precedent, which was largely seen as a victory for the abortion rights side, was weakened by later cases, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey, as the court shifted right. 

It is informative as to what the antiabortion movement will attempt if they can’t shift or keep state legislatures or the federal government in their favor. And if turnout is low in city elections in any given year, they may be able to impose those types of restrictions on the women who live in that town. Feminist leaders likely will prepare for that, but grassroots activists need to deliver at election time to maintain control of Democratic strongholds.