Thousands of pro-life marchers gathered on the National Mall this past weekend, braving the cold winter weather as they expressed their views on abortion rights. The event, known as the March for Life, featured prominent speakers, including US Vice President J.D. Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Demonstrators held signs proclaiming “Equality Begins in the Womb,” while counter-protesters near the US Supreme Court declared, “Choice, Freedom, Equality.” The contrasting messages reflect a significant and ongoing legal and philosophical debate surrounding abortion laws in the United States.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, the legal landscape concerning abortion has shifted dramatically. Abortion law has been handed over to individual states, resulting in a fragmented system characterized by varying bans, gestational limits, and protective “shield laws” aimed at safeguarding local providers and patients from external legal repercussions. This state-by-state approach has led to an increase in litigation concerning both criminal and civil bans, as well as federal emergency care responsibilities when pregnancies pose health risks.
What stands out in this post-Dobbs environment is the pervasive use of equality language by both sides. Advocates challenging restrictive abortion laws argue that such bans constitute sex-based discrimination, infringing on the Equal Protection Clause. Conversely, proponents of these laws assert that unborn children are entitled to the same legal protections as any other individuals, framing their arguments within the context of equality.
As the anniversary of Roe v. Wade approached, the focus on “privacy” has diminished, giving way to competing definitions of equality: equal treatment for pregnant individuals versus equal legal protections for unborn children. Legal scholar Robert John Araujo has posited that discussions of equality must be grounded in reason and fact, emphasizing the importance of recognizing shared human nature and biological realities in legal assessments.
The principle of equality is nuanced; simply claiming that two individuals or situations are equal does not inherently support the idea that they should be treated identically under the law. In the context of abortion debates, this often means that the moral and legal status of unborn life can be overlooked, leading to decisions that hinge on unexamined assumptions about personhood and rights.
Understanding the evolution of equality arguments necessitates a look at the trajectory from Roe to Dobbs. The original Roe v. Wade decision grounded the constitutional right to abortion in privacy and liberty rather than equality. It established a trimester framework centered on “viability” and the state’s interest in “potential life,” concluding that the term “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn. This framing allowed the discussion to center on the liberty interests of the pregnant individual, rather than addressing the rights of the unborn.
In contrast, the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling shifted the focus somewhat, introducing the concept of an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose while recognizing that abortion restrictions could significantly impact women’s social and economic status. Although the court did not formally redefine abortion as an issue of equality, it acknowledged that the legal landscape surrounding abortion directly affects women’s ability to participate equally in society.
As advocates continue to push for equality in the abortion debate, two distinct perspectives have emerged. The first, termed “equality-for-access,” highlights the significant burdens that pregnancy places on individuals who can become pregnant, suggesting that restrictions on abortion reinforce traditional gender roles and limit opportunities. This viewpoint argues that such restrictions constitute sex-based discrimination under various legal frameworks.
The opposing view, known as “equality-for-protection,” posits that a truly equitable legal system cannot exclude the unborn from protection. This perspective emphasizes the right to life as a fundamental equal claim, arguing that allowing the intentional termination of unborn life undermines the principle of equality itself.
A balanced analysis requires addressing the complexities inherent in both perspectives. Acknowledging the biological realities of pregnancy and the unique burdens it places on individuals can create a more nuanced understanding of equality. Rather than framing the debate as a binary choice between access and protection, it is crucial to consider structural reforms that address the social and economic disparities associated with pregnancy.
This “reason and fact” approach advocates for comprehensive policies that support both pregnant individuals and unborn life. Such measures might include stronger protections against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, equitable parental leave policies, expanded healthcare access, and robust support systems for families. By shifting the debate away from mere access to abortion and focusing on shared societal responsibilities, it is possible to create a legal framework that recognizes the complexities of pregnancy while upholding the principles of equality.
The ongoing discussions surrounding abortion law in the United States reveal deep and often conflicting views on equality. As states grapple with varying laws and regulations, the legal community and policymakers must navigate these complexities with careful consideration. The future of abortion law will not only be shaped by the jurisdictions that permit or restrict access but also by how equality is interpreted and applied within the legal system. The challenge remains to ensure that the principle of equality serves as a guiding force, grounded in reason and fact, rather than merely a label used to justify predetermined outcomes.
