Ecaterina Dermenji

Integrative Seminar

300-308-DW sect.19007

31 July 2022

We Abort Democracy: Abortion Laws and Political Polarization

Democracy is, for several reasons, a better state form of government than others. If we

look at the definition of this concept, how it is presented in the Britannica dictionary, democracy

is “a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state

or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by […] all (or nearly all) adult citizens”. Just

below it also explains why this form of government is better than the others. “States with

democratic governments prevent rule by autocrats, guarantee fundamental individual rights,

allow for a relatively high level of political equality, and rarely make war on each other.” From

this point of view, it really looks like a dream. But in today's world, democracy faces many

obstacles sometimes created by the government itself that lead to its backsliding. There are

various reasons why this is so, but in this essay we will consider the problem of polarization. In

simple words, polarization is the division of a population into two camps and the clash of these

two camps based on their opposing political opinions. So, while democracy is trying to rally

people, polarization is the complete opposite, which makes it the cause of the collapse of

democracy.

Polarization itself also has many causes for its occurrence. To explain this reason, I will

return to the definition of democracy presented above. It mentions that democracy “guarantee

fundamental individual rights” for all, with which everyone agrees. However, there is one right
that is directly violated by the state, which is contrary to the very idea of democracy. It is

precisely the violation of this right that creates polarization. This right, which is violated at the

state level, is the right of women to have a choice, specifically the right of women to have an

abortion. This happened in several countries, but I will concentrate on the case in United Sates.

In this essay, I will briefly present the story of how this right was passed into law and accepted

by people. I will also describe in detail the consequences of these actions, how they affect society

and how polarization occurs because of this.

Let's make a small step back to explain what Roe vs Wade is, how it arose and what it led

to. Roe refers to the law 410 U.S. 113 which was accepted by U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

The Texas hearing that led to this legislation was initiated by one woman, Jane Roe. At that

moment, she was arguing to the court that she had the right to have the opportunity to make a

choice and to have the right to a legal abortion. What Ms. Roe achieved was a breakthrough

not only for her alone but for all women in the United States. The adoption of such a law had

many consequences, both positive and negative.

Let's start with the positives. First of all, the legalization of abortion made it safer. “In

1965, abortion was so unsafe that 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth

were the result of illegal abortion.”(Planned Parenthood, p.2) The fact that abortions were not

recognized as legal did not prevent them from happening anyway. But it was the legalization

of abortion that contributed to the creation of abortion clinics and professional doctors

specializing in abortion, which led to a decrease in the statistics of deaths due to abortion.

“Abortion-related mortality in 1973 was an estimated 3.4 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. In

1980, the figure was 0.5 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions-an 85% decrease”. (Kunins &

Rosenfield, p. 373) The legalization of abortion also gave women the opportunity to develop.
They had a choice about their body that gave them the opportunity to choose their future,

something that, for example, men have always had. In 1992, Supreme Court of US even noted

that ““the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation

has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Planned Parenthood of

Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). The legalization of abortion, in addition to single

women, also helped poor families. Families that were already living from check to check simply

could not afford another child. The new law gave them a choice, too.

However, the acceptance of Roe by Supreme Court l led to huge polarization amongst

nation. Pro-life organizations that have previously actively participated in the social life of

people as well as political ones have reached a new level of action. This divided people into

two camps to this day. Emily Bazelon has called this “the intractable, depressing national

divide over abortion.”( Bazelon, supra note 2) In addition to social discourse against Roe, Pro-

life activists, their more extremist representatives have even made more significant actions

showing their attitudes towards abortion, namely abortion clinics.

“Depuis 1977, il y a eu plus de 80 000 actes de violence menés contre les cliniques ou

personnes qui fournissent des conseils ou pratiquent des avortements à travers le pays. Sachant

qu’environ 1 800 personnes sont habilitées à pratiquer des avortements, il y a eu, depuis 1977, 7

meurtres, 17 tentatives de meurtres, 41 cliniques totalement détruites par des explosifs, 166

cliniques mises à feu (82 tentatives similaires ayant échoué), 373 cambriolages et vols de

personnes ou dans les cliniques, 1 042 actes de vandalisme, 100 attaques contre les cliniques ou

personnel des cliniques à l’acide butyrique (un liquide clair sans couleur avec une odeur de vomi

qui ne part jamais), 654 menaces d’anthrax par lettre, dont 480 depuis le 11 septembre, 125
agressions physiques de personnel, 355 menaces de mort (prononcées désormais sur des sites

internet) et 3 enlèvements.” (Merchant, pp. 773-774)

Let's move forward to our days. U.S. Supreme Court decides to drop the Roe, causing

even more polarization than when it was passed in 1973. This decision goes against the rights

that should be protected at the constitutional level. Thousands of women came out to protest as

soon as they learned that the law protecting their right to choose, which has been in force for

almost 50 years, will be taken away from them. In addition, just like in the last century, the

recognition of abortion as illegal does not change the fact that they will still be performed. Those

women who will not be able to go where abortion is legal will put their lives at risk because they

still want to follow their choice. “The WHO also states that “inaccessibility of quality abortion

care risks violating a range of human rights of women and girls, including the right to life; the

right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to benefit from

scientific progress and its realization; the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number,

spacing and timing of children; and the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment and punishment.”(Tran, 2022)

After all, will this have any effect on the similar law in Canada? In Canada, abortion was

decriminalized later than in the States, only in 1988 the Supreme Court approved this law. So

Canadian women better remember what it's like not to have a choice. At the moment, women in

Canada have nothing to fear, but don't be so calm because American women did not expect such

an outcome either. Here I would still pay attention to the words said by Dr. Tami J. Friedman,

Professor of 20th-century U.S. history at Brock University. In her interview with a newspaper

“The Voice of Pelham” from Niagara, Dr. Friedman said that “There are politicians right here in
Niagara who are very vocal about their opposition to abortion. Conservative MP Sam Oosterhoff

has said on record that he hopes to fight to make abortion ‘unthinkable in our lifetime.”

In summarizing all the information above, a clear conclusion can be made about how the

illegality of abortions is linked to the decline of democracy. The adoption of the Roe vs Wade in

the 70s led to the expansion of rights for women, thereby supporting democracy. Nevertheless,

even then it led to the development of polarization on this topic, as well as on state decisions

within the framework of democracy. Now, the repeal of this law has led to even more social

activity among both sides, thereby increasing polarization between Pro-life and Pro-choice. Even

if at the moment this issue does not pose a threat to Canadian society and does not contribute to a

greater development of polarization, there is no guarantee that similar events will not occur here

in the near future and will not create the ground for polarization and a threat to liberal

democracy.
References:
 Dahl, R. A. (2022, April 10). democracy. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

 Planned Parenthood, Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact(n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2022,
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf

 Kunins, H., & Rosenfield, A. (1991). Abortion: a legal and public health
perspective. Annual Review of Public Health, 12, 361–382.
https://dc153.dawsoncollege.qc.ca:2325/10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.002045

 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856, 877
(1992)

 Ginsberg, N.A., Shulman, L.P. Life without Roe v Wade. Contracept Reprod Med 6, 5
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-021-00149-6

 Jennifer Merchant (2006), La fragilité de l'arrêt Roe versus Wade, Med Sci (Paris),
Volume 22, Number 8-9, 773-776 . https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20062289773
 Tran, H. (2022, July 8). Analysis: How roe v. Wade was overturned, and what it may
mean for Canada. The Voice of Pelham. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from
https://thevoiceofpelham.ca/2022/07/08/analysis-how-roe-v-wade-was-overturned-and-
what-it-may-mean-for-canada/

 Mary Ziegler, Beyond Backlash: Legal History, Polarization, and Roe v. Wade, 71

WASH. & LEE L. REV. 969 (2014), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/326