Abortion: An equal right to life… except when it is not equal
Tamara Browne1, Deakin University 1Deakin University
Abstract
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. As a result, abortion is now banned in 13 states. Erika Bachiochi summarised the rationale behind banning abortion in this way: “constitutional protection of unborn children as equal “persons” under the law remains the movement’s ultimate — if elusive — goal”. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas and Missouri now have fetal personhood laws. Yet there is an elephant in the room (or womb) in this debate – none of the U.S. states actually ban abortion completely. Some states allow exceptions to the ban in cases of rape or incest, and at the very least, every state so far permits abortion if the pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant person. Such exceptions likely make intuitive sense to those making that law and are supported by almost three-quarters of Americans. However, I argue that these exceptions are logically inconsistent with the rationale they seek to uphold. Lawmakers in states that ban or seek to ban abortion should therefore give up on the “fetal personhood” rationale and instead embrace and extend the rationale behind the laws that allow abortion to save the life of the pregnant person. In other words, they should extend the rationale that the two entities are not equal “persons” so that abortion can once again be permitted in those states.
Biography
Tamara Kayali Browne is a Senior Lecturer in Health Ethics and Professionalism at Deakin University and an Adjunct Research Fellow at Charles Sturt University. Their publications include Depression and the Self (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Their primary research interests are in the ethics of sex selection, gender and mental illness.