What will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned?

Tweet

An issue that has been raised in the wake of the rushed appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court is what this might mean to the right of a woman to seek an abortion. This has certainly given hope to the "right to life" campaigners, who see Judge Barrett as an ally to their cause, which is to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade judgment that made abortion - under certain conditions - legal in the United States. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this hope is a realistic one - especially given Judge Barrett's repeated statements that her personal views will not influence her legal decisions - one must also wonder what the effect would be if such an event were to happen and abortion became far more difficult to obtain than it is at present. It seems to me that one has to look at this matter in the round and not be swayed by any prejudices one might have regarding abortion, based on religious beliefs or anything else. There are many examples across the world that point to the likely outcome. These relate to the practice of women who desperately seek abortions taking all means they can to achieve that. The fact that abortion becomes illegal does not mean that abortions will not take place. One recourse is to leave the country and seek an abortion in a country where the rules are far more relaxed. Some years ago abortion was far more easily obtained in Poland than in Sweden. There was a steady flow of Swedish women travelling to Polish abortion clinics. Then two things happened - Poland tightened its laws and Sweden relaxed theirs. The flow then reversed, with Polish women travelling to Sweden. But suppose a woman cannot afford to make such a trip? The temptation then is to get a "back street" or "do it yourself" abortion. Many women have died as a result of undergoing an unsafe abortion, and the vast majority of these cases occur in countries where abortion is severely restricted in law. The United States has a particular problem in this regard, due to the huge cost entailed in undergoing a live birth. One might say to a young woman that she should go to full term and have the child adopted - but suppose she cannot afford the huge fees that hospitals charge for births and maternity care, these running to tens of thousands of dollars? This prospect can only add to the sense of desperation that a woman of limited means, without health insurance, is likely to feel. She might well come to the conclusion that paying far less to an illegal abortionist is worth the risk. This is not an easy moral dilemma, and I will confess to having changed my mind on the general question of abortion. I am well aware that - had abortion been freely available in Scotland in 1951/2 - I would quite likely never have been born. A young wife was made pregnant by someone other than her husband, who had no intention of bringing up another man's child. At that time, the adoption route was the only one available, so I was duly adopted. So why am I not a "right to life" advocate"? It is because I am fully aware that it is always unsafe to generalise from a particular case, and I am also conscious of the big picture - which shows the misery and death that result when abortion services are severely restricted.