Roe v. Wade must not be overturned, taking into account many women’s lack of financial stability and their health.
By Natalie Metcalf, Staff Writer
The overturning of Roe v. Wade will be a major step back in the long and ever persevering women’s rights movement. Abortion has been a controversial topic for years, as conservatives believe the termination of pregnancy is murder. But the government should not be dictating to women how to control their bodies.
In January of 1973 — almost 50 years ago — Roe v. Wade changed women’s history. Now, the influential law is being threatened as ignorance of women's health and lower-income communities has caused the Supreme Court to contemplate reversing the ruling. On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft opinion that showed the Supreme Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the initial draft and expressed his concern with the court case. But it is not up to him — or any of the nine Supreme Court Justices — to decide.
A woman’s reason to terminate her pregnancy is her business, not the government’s. Having a child is expensive, as there are various factors such as necessary costs and mental readiness that go into taking care of one. If a woman is not mentally or financially ready to raise a child, she should have the right to receive an abortion.
In California, an uncomplicated pregnancy costs between $5,000 and $11,000. If the mother requires a cesarean section, the amount will increase by roughly $3,000 — which only covers the delivery of the baby. Women who are not financially stable enough to have a child would also have to worry about paying for regular doctor check-ups, pregnancy-related tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, obstetrician and anesthesiologist’s fees, as well as hospital care and prescriptions related to pregnancy and recovery from childbirth.
According to Zippia, women in the United States make a median of $42,238 over the course of a year. In contrast, men make a median of $54,004 a year. Since women in lower-income communities make less money in the U.S., they should be given the right to an abortion.
Having a child is a life-changing decision because of how much money, time and effort goes into being pregnant and then being a parent. Instead of drafting opinions to restrict women’s rights, the people in government should be focusing on addressing more prevalent issues that plague the population in existence, like the homeless population.
According to World Population Review, California holds the highest homelessness population in the U.S. As of this year, 151, 278 people are homeless — 33 percent being families. According to the World Health Organization, 30 women die for every 100,000 unsafe abortions. The women of the homeless population should have the right to receive an abortion, as they will not be able to afford the correct medical care. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, women with financial instability will be forced into motherhood or die from unsafe abortion.
The threat to Roe v. Wade will affect women’s health, as six to eight percent of women deal with complicated pregnancies – such as diabetes, eating disorders, drinking and smoking during pregnancy. According to the University of California San Francisco, some women deal with high-risk pregnancies due to the baby's health or the mother’s. If a woman has a medical condition that can harm her health while pregnant, she should be able to receive an abortion.
Roe v. Wade is an important precedent that should continue to be a part of this country. Women have fought long and hard to maintain their rights. The law should be a guaranteed right under federal law, considering lower-income and homeless women will not be able to raise a child financially.