My thoughts on the 1-year anniversary of Dobbs

Abortion debate has grown even more complex since Roe was overturned

I saw that many outlets had published one-year anniversary stories about the Dobbs decision. I thought it might be useful to compose some of my own thoughts on what transpired in the past year and where I think it will head in the future. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the culmination of a decades-long effort by antiabortion activists to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Now that they’ve succeeded, these same activists now have hoped to get statewide and federal bans on abortion as early as six weeks, long before most women know that they’re pregnant. 

The bills have gotten more direct and restrictive as antiabortion politicians realize they may be upheld. We saw a fetal heartbeat bill pass in Florida that restricted abortions past six weeks. In other states, they’ve had near-total bans as well. Some states, like Texas, rely on the threat of civil lawsuits to deter people from helping others get abortions. 

Abortion rights leaders have responded by attempting to get abortion rights enshrined within state law through an interpretation given by state supreme courts. They’ve also tried to gather enough signatures to enshrine abortion rights through ballot initiatives. 

There have been disagreements over the direction the movement should take, as has historically been the case within feminism. Some leaders wanted a more top-down approach with messaging and decision-making centralized in New York and Los Angeles. Activists in states like Kentucky, Texas and Mississippi told me that they wanted to have more autonomy in shaping how activism and outreach would occur in their areas. Ultimately, the local approach won out as PPFA made massive cuts to its national budget and reallocated funds to state affiliates. 

Abortion care has also been revolutionized in the last few years. If this had been the 1990s, the focus would have been on preserving aspiration abortion. Now, most abortions are through medication. A Texas judge ruled that Mifepristone–the first pill in a two-pill abortion regimen–couldn’t be permitted by the FDA. That was challenged in federal appeals court and the drug remained available after the Supreme Court said it couldn’t be prohibited as the case continued. The victory wasn’t complete though. It still remains to be seen if we will keep access to it. We await the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the matter.

Should it be banned, then abortion medication will be strictly left to misoprostol, which is the second pill in the regimen. Abortions can still occur, but they’re slightly less effective than when mifepristone and misoprostol are combined. 

Telehealth and pharmaceutical care have been central parts of the abortion debate in the last year. Women in obstetrical deserts have relied on internet access to request abortion pills through the mail. Antiabortion activists have sought to eliminate this option. 

I have my own thoughts on the direction of the movement. It needs to do a far better job of monitoring what the other side is doing. This is part of a larger problem within liberalism as people have siphoned off any view that disagrees with their own when going on social media. So they don’t keep a perspective on who truly disagrees with them or how those individuals are manipulating others to win the debate. We can’t take a see no evil, hear no evil approach to politics. 

You have to know what people are doing in order to counteract them. And you have to practice arguments against your own allies who present the other side as persuasively as they can while still holding a pro-choice position. That’s how lawyers prepare for arguments. That’s essentially the purpose of playing devil’s advocate. Otherwise, when a pro-choice activist or leader finally shares the stage with an antiabortion one, she or he will be completely surprised by the direction of the argument that the debate goes in. And they will lose it in the eyes of those watching.