Search Results

Lately, there has been discussion that the American judicial system is comprised of double standards applied based on political ideology. The theory that the American judicial system has a double standard applied based on political ideology has been fueled by several high-profile cases over the years that have highlighted disparities in how the justice system treats different groups of people. Some people believe that the legal system is biased against conservatives or those who hold right-wing political views, while others believe that it is biased against progressives or those who hold left-wing political views. One factor that has contributed to this theory is the way in which cases are prosecuted and investigated, with some arguing that law enforcement and prosecutors are more likely to go after individuals who hold certain political beliefs or affiliations. A 2018 study conducted by the Sentencing Project found that there were no differences in the incarceration rates of Democrats and Republicans. Conservative commentators point to cases like the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Dinesh D’Souza as proof of the federal government’s efforts to silence high level members of the Republican party. Michael Flynn, a former national security advisor to President Trump, was charged with lying to the FBI as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. He pleaded guilty to the charges in 2017, but later withdrew his guilty plea and accused the FBI of misconduct. In 2020, the Department of Justice announced that it would drop the charges against Flynn, citing misconduct by the FBI. Interestingly, the move by the DoJ to drop his charges occurred under then President Donald Trump, igniting speculation that the move was politically motivated and directed by the Trump Administration. Roger Stone is a longtime Republican strategist and associate of President Trump who was charged with lying to Congress and witness tampering as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. He was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to 40 months in prison but was later granted clemency by President Trump in July 2020. The decision to grant clemency to Stone was controversial and sparked a debate over the independence of the Justice Department and the politicization of the legal system by former president Trump. Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative author and filmmaker who was charged with violating campaign finance laws during the 2012 US presidential election. He pleaded guilty to the charges in 2014 and was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house and five years of probation. Some conservatives argued that D'Souza was unfairly targeted by the Obama administration and that the charges against him were politically motivated. D'Souza himself has stated that he believes he was targeted for his political views. It is important to note that D’Souza pleaded guilty of his own accord and that there is no substantial evidence to support his claims that he was unfairly targeted. While there are many additional cases that conservatives use, the reality of these three cases underpins the fact that any evidence of the targeting of conservatives by the justice department is circumstantial at best and in most cases, evidence exists that it was conservative actors that reduced or eliminated any consequences associated with the violations alleged in each case. The true, and well documented double standard is the one in which defendants of different races or different economic back grounds receive vastly different verdicts for vastly similar cases. Examples of these cases include the Central Park Five, Brock Turner, Ethan Couch, and Kalief Browder. As of 2022, the incarceration rates in America are 1.4% for African Americans, .75% For Latinx Americans, and .45% for Caucasian Americans. In 1989, five Black and Latino teenagers, known as the “Central Park Five” were falsely accused and convicted of raping a White woman in Central Park, New York City. They were exonerated in 2002 after DNA evidence proved their innocence but had already served several years in prison. In 2015, Brock Turner, a White student-athlete at Stanford University, was found guilty of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster but received a lenient sentence of only six months in jail, sparking national outrage. Kalief Browder was a 16-year-old Black teenager from the Bronx who was accused of stealing a backpack in 2010. He was held at Rikers Island for three years, two of which were spent in solitary confinement, while awaiting trial. Despite never being convicted of a crime, he suffered abuse and neglect in prison, and ultimately committed suicide after being released. His case brought attention to the issue of pretrial detention and the harsh conditions faced by inmates in the US criminal justice system. In 2013, Ethan Couch, a 16-year-old from a wealthy family, caused a car accident that killed four people and injured nine others while driving drunk. His defense argued that he suffered from "affluenza," a condition where his wealthy upbringing left him unable to understand the consequences of his actions. He received a sentence of 10 years probation and no jail time, which was widely criticized as being too lenient. Four cases, two extremely clear examples illustrating how the judicial system has been proven to be biased against minority and poor defendants. As of 2022, the incarceration rates in America are 1.4% for African Americans, .75% For Latinx Americans, and .45% for Caucasian Americans. Broken down by economic status: the bottom twentieth percentile of America’s income level face an incarceration rate of 1.54%, with the mid twentieth percentile seeing a rate of .47% and the top twentieth percentile seeing a rate of a mere .15%. The United States holds the top spot when it comes to its incarcerated population compared to other developed nations, with a whopping 1.2 million Americans behind bars. That number is even more abysmal when broken down by socio-economic status with a whopping 68% recidivism rate for those living at or below the poverty line and 41% for those living above the poverty line. Broken down by race: 48% of African Americans find their way back behind bars compared to 41% of White Americans. The primary driver for the high numbers is that even after someone serves their sentence fully and are released from prison, they continue to be punished. Recent studies have found that the average unemployment rate for convicted criminals ranges between 12 and 27 percent, far higher than the current national unemployment rate of 3.9%. In short, there is a double standard in the American Judicial system, it just isn’t what some conservative commentators want you to believe. The double standard exists within race and socio-economic status, rather than political ideology. In fact, a 2018 study conducted by the Sentencing Project found that there were no differences in the incarceration rates of Democrats and Republicans. Cries of political persecution may make it easier for politicians to gain support and funding for their campaigns, the numbers simply do not support the claims.

Lately the news, and our politicians have been loud about discussing the political weaponization of the American legal system. Accusations have risen from both sides, some have had validity, while others have been found to be baseless. The common theme here is that they all do more harm to the legal system than good in the way that they are presented. Allegations of Democrat weaponization of the legal system: Some political figures and commentators have alleged that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, was politically motivated and designed to target President Trump and his associates. They argue that the investigation was conducted in a biased manner and that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conclusions reached. The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was launched by the FBI in July 2016, after it was discovered that Russian hackers had targeted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other political organizations. The investigation continued under the direction of special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017. The investigation concluded in March 2019, with the release of the Mueller Report. The report found that Russian operatives had conducted a "sweeping and systematic" campaign to interfere in the election, including through the use of social media, hacking, and the dissemination of stolen emails. The report also found that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian operatives, but did not establish sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Some political figures and commentators have alleged that the investigation was politically motivated and designed to target President Trump and his associates. They argue that the investigation was conducted in a biased manner, with investigators and prosecutors who were hostile to Trump and his agenda. They also argue that the evidence presented in the report was insufficient to support the conclusions reached, and that the report was therefore a politically motivated attack on the Trump administration. It is important to note that Robert Meuller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein who was himself appointed by then President Donald J Trump. The impeachment proceedings against former President Trump in 2019 and 2021 have been characterized by some as politically motivated and designed to remove Trump from office rather than to pursue justice. They argue that the charges against Trump were based on flimsy evidence and that the proceedings were conducted in a biased manner. The impeachment proceedings against former President Donald Trump in both 2019 and 2021 were initiated by Democrats in the House of Representatives. In 2019, Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden. In 2021, he was impeached for incitement of insurrection in connection with the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on January 6th. Some political figures and commentators have alleged that the impeachment proceedings were politically motivated and designed to remove Trump from office rather than to pursue justice. They argue that the charges against Trump were based on flimsy evidence and that the proceedings were conducted in a biased manner, with Democrats seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Regardless of where you fall out, impeachment proceedings are always political in nature and in every instance, the House saw evidence of misconduct and the Senate found that evidence lacking. The system worked. Some have alleged that the investigation into the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was suppressed by Democrats in order to protect the Biden family from negative publicity. They argue that the investigation was politically motivated and that the evidence of wrongdoing was ignored or downplayed. The investigation into the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was a topic of controversy during the 2020 presidential election. The investigation, which was conducted by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware, focused on Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and China, particularly his work for a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. Some political figures and commentators have alleged that the investigation was suppressed by Democrats in order to protect the Biden family from negative publicity. They argue that the investigation was politically motivated and that the evidence of wrongdoing was ignored or downplayed. supporters of the Biden family argue that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father. They argue that the investigation was a politically motivated attempt to smear the Biden family and to undermine Joe Biden's presidential campaign. In December 2020, it was reported that the investigation had been ongoing since 2018, but that it had not uncovered any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father. The investigation was closed without any charges being filed. Now, there is some purely circumstantial evidence to support allegations that the media and social media outlets suppressed the story during the 2020 elections, but again it is purely circumstantial and there is no evidence that the alleged cover up was done at the direction of the government. Some have alleged that Democrats have used the legal system to cover up allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. They argue that lawsuits challenging the election results were dismissed in a biased manner and that evidence of fraud was ignored or suppressed. The 2020 presidential election was a highly contested election, with allegations of voter fraud and irregularities being raised by some political figures and commentators. These allegations were largely focused on the use of mail-in ballots and other changes to the voting process, which were implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some have alleged that Democrats have used the legal system to cover up allegations of voter fraud in the election. They argue that lawsuits challenging the election results were dismissed in a biased manner and that evidence of fraud was ignored or suppressed. However, supporters of the election results argue that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and that the lawsuits challenging the results were dismissed because they lacked merit or were based on unfounded claims. They argue that the legal system was used to ensure the integrity of the election and to protect the democratic process. It is important to note that the lawsuits alleging voter fraud have been dismissed by courts, and many of the lawyers who filed them have been sanctioned. Also, while there have been cases of voter fraud identified in the 2020 elections, none of it was widespread enough to have had any impact to the final result. Allegations of Republican weaponization of the legal system: Some political figures and commentators have alleged that Republicans have used the legal system to suppress voter turnout, particularly among communities of color, through tactics such as voter ID laws, purging of voter rolls, and gerrymandering of electoral districts. They argue that these tactics are designed to give Republicans an unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the democratic process. Voter suppression is a term used to describe efforts to prevent eligible voters from casting their ballots, often through restrictive voting laws and practices. Republicans have been accused of using voter suppression tactics to suppress turnout, particularly among communities of color, students, and other groups that tend to vote for Democrats. Examples of voter suppression tactics include strict voter ID laws, voter roll purges, and gerrymandering of electoral districts. Proponents of these tactics argue that they are necessary to prevent voter fraud and to ensure the integrity of the election process. However, critics argue that they are designed to give Republicans an unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the democratic process. Critics of these tactics argue that they disproportionately affect minority communities and other marginalized groups, making it more difficult for them to exercise their right to vote. For example, strict voter ID laws can make it difficult for low-income voters and the elderly to obtain the required ID, while voter roll purges can result in eligible voters being removed from the rolls. Importantly, in the years since the 2020 elections, many states implemented new laws that were contended by critics to be measures designed to suppress voter turn out. Interestingly, the 2022 mid term elections, was reported to have the highest turnout of any mid-term elections and the results mirrored the pre-voting polling. Aside from some reports of longer lines and broken poling machines, there was no evidence to suggest that the changes had any effect on the end result. Some have alleged that Republicans, including former President Trump, have attempted to use the legal system to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, despite the lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud. They argue that these attempts are politically motivated and designed to undermine the legitimacy of the election and the democratic process. Following the election, former President Donald Trump and his supporters made numerous claims of voter fraud and irregularities, despite these claims being widely debunked by election officials and courts across the country. In the weeks and months following the election, Trump and his legal team filed numerous lawsuits in an attempt to overturn the results in several key battleground states. However, these lawsuits were largely unsuccessful, with courts finding no evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities. Despite these setbacks, some Republicans continued to challenge the election results, with several Republican lawmakers objecting to the certification of the results in Congress on January 6, 2021. This led to the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters, resulting in the deaths of several people and widespread condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum. Critics of these efforts argue that they were politically motivated and designed to undermine the democratic process and the will of the American people. They also argue that these efforts have contributed to a climate of distrust and division in the country, and have undermined public confidence in the electoral process. Importantly, the alleged efforts to overturn the election have resulted in various investigations into misconduct by those acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, the most significant being the investigation playing out in Georgia. Some have accused Republicans of attempting to pack the courts with conservative judges in order to advance their political agenda. They argue that this is an attempt to politicize the judiciary and to undermine the independence of the courts. Court packing is a term used to describe efforts to increase the number of judges on a court, often with the goal of influencing its decisions and advancing a political agenda. Republicans have been accused of attempting to pack the courts with conservative judges in order to advance their political agenda. One example of this is the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Barrett's confirmation was controversial, as it occurred just weeks before the presidential election, and Democrats accused Republicans of rushing the process in order to secure a conservative majority on the Court. Democrats argued that this was an attempt to politicize the judiciary and to undermine the independence of the courts. Another example of this would be the Republican senate stonewalling former President Obama's appointment of Merck Garland to the Supreme Court. At the time Republicans argued that the vacancy on the Supreme Court should not be filled until after the presidential elections, citing what they called the "Biden rule." Critics on the other hand, argued that the actions of the Republican majority in the Senate represented a politically motivated effort to pack the court and obstruct the normal functioning of Government for political gain. Republicans have defended their actions, arguing that they are simply filling vacancies on the courts with qualified judges who will interpret the law impartially. They also argue that Democrats have engaged in similar tactics in the past, particularly under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is important to note the perceived hypocrisy of the Republican Party in their contrasting actions during two very similar scenarios. Some have alleged that Republicans, including former President Trump, have used executive power to bypass the legal system and to implement policies that are not supported by the majority of the American people. They argue that this is an abuse of power that undermines the democratic process. This allegation is particularly focused on former President Donald Trump, who was accused of using his executive power to bypass the legal system and implement policies that were not supported by the majority of the American people. Examples of this include Trump's travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, his efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and his controversial border wall with Mexico. Critics argue that these policies were implemented without proper consideration for their legality or their impact on the American people, and that they were designed to advance Trump's political agenda rather than to serve the public interest. Republicans have defended Trump's actions, arguing that he was simply using his executive power to implement policies that he believed were in the best interests of the American people. They argue that Democrats have engaged in similar tactics in the past, particularly under President Barack Obama. Of note, the use of executive orders to bypass the slower, more traditional legislative process has been employed by presidents of both parties throughout American history so it could be argued that this is an example that applies to both Democrats and Republicans. At the end of the day, our two party system has led to a "tit for tat" process in which the party in power leverages their control over the American legal system to single out its opposition. The dangers here are clear, and can be seen in countless examples of nations that fall victim to authoritarian regimes. As citizens, we need to recognize this pattern and actively participate in the democratic process to prevent any further slippage toward authoritarianism. Neither party should be allowed to leverage control against the opposition.

A little over 20 years ago, I gave a speech in high school; the topic was about what being an American meant to me. I wish I had the foresight to save that speech, but the synopsis was hopeful, and ignorant of the realities of the American legal, economic, and political systems. In my speech I pointed to the freedom of every American to choose their lot in life. I pointed to the promise of America that every citizen, no matter their lot in life, had the right, and the ability to change their lot, to climb up or fall down the ladder of progress. Over twenty years later, I continue to believe that those ideals are still true, that the greatness of America is not in its power, or its economic prowess. Instead, the greatness of America is rooted in the freedom of Americans to reach for and achieve their dreams. Rosy outlook, right? Some might say it’s a little naïve. I will admit that the reality is much bleaker than the idea. In reality, it is far easier to fall down the ladder than it is to climb up. In reality, the ease of climbing is determined by so many variables from the color of your skin to the location that you live. In reality, those who have climbed to the top have corrupted American ideals and weaponized them to eliminate rungs in the ladder making it harder for others to follow their footsteps. Last year, I started Crayon Box politics with the intent of taking the issues that we face as Americans and breaking them out of the political lines set by the two-party system. I wanted to demonstrate just how alike we all are on the most “divisive” of issues. This year, I started out participating in Twitter, and boy do I regret it. I have found the good, the bad and the ugly in the platform that bills itself as the online town square. There is rarely any room for constructive debate, cordial conversations are the exception to the rule and almost everyone is ready to fight over their own beliefs without listening to the view points of others. If one were to base our nation off of social media they would be hard pressed to identify any reason for our nation to exist as it is. That slippery slope is so easy to slide into, I know because I have caught myself sliding down that slope. The important thing to understand is that we are more than our individual parts, our disagreements are natural and a nation without dissent is one that lacks balanced progress and is more likely to fall apart. The last few years have seen a rapid decline in the decorum of our political intercourse, conservatives are becoming more conservative, progressives have become more progressive. The start of the second decade of the 21st century have given us COVID, lock downs, BLM protests, a hasty withdrawal from America's longest war, Russian aggression against a sovereign nation, Chinese spy balloons, the start of a new Cold War, a former president facing criminal charges, and the list goes on and on and on. There is cause to be concerned, but more importantly, there is cause to be hopeful. Now is the time for us to truly find the middle ground, to color outside the political lines, to work together to rediscover our national identity, looking forward to the future while embracing and acknowledging our past. This year I plan on continuing to tackle our most divisive issues while introducing some discourse on the thorny topics in the podcast. Hit the subscribe button, register on the website and join in as we continue the work to color outside the lines.

The American healthcare system is a joke. Laughably full of grift and greed. Healthcare Insurance is a billion-dollar industry that profits off the backs of Americans and gives barely anything in return. Democrats spent decades trying to fix the system and install a government regulated insurance program, but failed every time because of lobbying and financial gains, and a smattering of moron politicians. Republicans, meanwhile, pushed reforms to the system that subsidized the health insurance industry in the hopes that those subsidies would ensure that the cost of health care would drop. By the mid 2000's the dream of a single payer system was dead, and the private insurance industry had cemented its grip on our health care system. In my opinion, the system needs to be burned to the ground, and we need to examine why it is that we feel the need for capitalism to exist in an area that is essential to the well-being of our nation and our society. Starting at the beginning; our nation was not born with a health care system, quite the opposite. At its inception, our nation had a tangle of soothsayers, and self-proclaimed medicine men and women who touted things that were guaranteed to make all ailments better. Abortion medicines weren’t even advertised as intended for abortion, instead these things were advertised as a solution meant to restore a woman to her natural flow.(Able, 2022) Medical services were rendered by practitioners who were trained via another practitioner who, once they felt their apprentice had learned enough, would sign off on them to be a certified practitioner themselves. The best part? The student paid the teacher to study with them and learn from them. Payments came in the form of whatever the hell the patient could pay, and prices were always set by the “doctor.” (Griffin, 2020) That is not to say that real medical care did not exist, medical schools, such as the medical department of Kings College popped up in the 1760’s and the first medical degree was awarded in the 1770’s. (Griffin, 2020) Further still, proof of medical understanding can be seen in the story of how George Washington instituted the small pox vaccine for the continental army in order to keep his military strength while preventing the spread of the dangerous disease. (Aker, 2021) Gradually, formal medical education became a thing in the United States and a degree from a reputable school meant more than a certificate from the old village doctor. Formal education and professionalization of the medical field led to the formation of medical societies. The most influential of these is the American Medical Association (AMA). (Griffin, 2020) I mentioned the AMA in the previous series on reproductive health, they were the organization that spearheaded the push to end legal abortion prior to Roe, they are also the organization that pushed propaganda that painted women as untrustworthy. (Able, 2022) My research has uncovered so much about the history of the AMA that I am amazed that they still exist as an organization to this day. We will talk more about the AMA later in this blog, but suffice it to say, they have quite a bit of responsibility for the healthcare system we all enjoy today. Of course, with higher education comes higher costs and those higher costs were passed down to, you guessed it, the patient. The first thing that happened with this rise in cost was the change in how doctors accepted payment, instead of accepting things in lieu of monetary payment, doctors strictly adhered to accepting only money in exchange for their services. In order to pay for the rising costs in health care, the first forms of health insurance took shape. The earliest example of this is born out of a desire for a Washington lumber company to ensure that its employees had access to health care. (Health Markets, 2021) This form of “insurance” was called a “sickness fund” it was paid for by employees who would provide a percentage of their paycheck to ensure the fund had the money to cover them if they became sick or injured and were unable to work. (American College of Healthcare Executives, n.d.) At the start of the 20th century, employers found themselves liable for workplace injuries if they were found to be the result of the employer’s negligence. Often, the employer would defend themselves with three strategies: the employee assumed the risk when they took the job, the injury was the result of the negligence of a co-worker, and finally, the injured employee was at least partially at fault. In the early 1900’s cases to determine liability were common, if not frequent. As a result, employers pushed for workers compensation laws throughout the nation. These laws established an insurance program that employers could purchase from the government. Coverage was optional and the laws had an interesting loophole: if employers purchased the coverage, then they would be able to use the three defensive strategies to contest employee claims, if an employer chose to forego the insurance, they would lose the ability to employ the defensive strategies and would be immediately identified as negligent in any injury claim. (American College of Healthcare Executives, n.d.) Even as employers bought into workers compensation, the discussions around healthcare and who should pay for it began to pop up in the political scene and the first efforts to formalize health insurance took form. President Theodore Roosevelt, along with his progressive party came out in public support of something called social insurance (Aker, 2021), more on that in a bit. It was this governmental endorsement of social insurance that led to organizations like National Convention of Insurance Commissioners to develop and deliver to the states, a prototype of legislation that could be used to regulate health insurance. At the same time, another organization, American Association for Labor Legislation, proposed legislation that would make health insurance compulsory nationwide. (Aker, 2021) Private insurance plans as we know them today, took shape during the great depression. This is where two of the largest providers of health insurance got their start. BlueCross began as a program instituted by the Baylor University Hospital in Dallas, Texas. The program was designed to provide local teachers with access to healthcare for $6 per month, allowing for a 21 day stay at the hospital for $5 per day. (Aker, 2021) Accounting for inflation, in today’s economy that comes out to $104.57 per month and $87.14 per day for 21 days. Still comically lower than what is paid by Americans today: $456 on average for individuals and $1,152 on average for families per month. (Porretta, 2022) I’ll dive deeper into health care costs in a later entry. Getting back to the topic, Kaiser Permanente got started when a man named Henry Kaiser came to an arrangement for his aqueduct workers to have access to healthcare at a local hospital at a fixed rate. (Aker, 2021) Throughout the 1930’s more of these plans began to sprout up and became known as “hospital service plans.” As with anything that develops over time, these programs began to professionalize, eventually forming committees run by hospitals across the nation. These committees developed rules to govern and regulate hospital service plans, they also developed a list of requirements for plan approvals. These committees grew to form the basis for the system of health insurance networks that Americans enjoy so much. (Health Markets, 2021) In the late 1930’s discussion around a public health insurance program arose out of the poor economic situation resulting from the Great Depression. President Franklin Roosevelt established a Committee on Economic Security (CES) to study and establish a program to address old-age and unemployment issues, as well as medical care and health insurance. While it was tasked with finding a way to address health insurance as part of its mandate, the committee prioritized retirement benefits and unemployment insurance due to the desire to develop a program that would gain the most support in Congress. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) The biggest program that resulted from the CES is the Social Security Act which established the Social Security Tax and the Social Security Administration to provide a stable income for the elderly, retired population. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) (That’s another topic we will be visiting so I will leave that subject alone for now.) Roosevelt tried again to reform health care after the passage of the Social Security Act, this time convening the Technical Committee on Medical Care. The resulting recommendations for reform called for the establishment of a federally subsidized and regulated state-run system, though participation in this system was voluntary for individual states, citizens of states that participated in the program would be required to have health insurance. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) Roosevelt’s reforms failed to be ratified by Congress, primarily due to a shift by Southern Democrats who aligned themselves with their Republican counterparts who opposed the expansion of the federal government, an effort seen by Southern Democrats to protect segregation. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009)To completely seal the coffin and bury the National Health Initiative presented by Roosevelt, the AMA(yea, that organization)decided to raise its nasty little head and stick its nose into the political arena yet again. This time the AMA stood against any form of government provided health insurance plan on the basis that any such plan would result in doctors losing autonomy, being forced to work in group practice models and, the icing on the cake, limit a doctor’s income to a salary basis or limit their income with profit caps. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) In the 1940’s the story remained the same. The Truman administration introduced a bill that would have established a single payer health insurance plan that would provide subsidies to the poor and would have resulted in all Americans having equal and equitable access to health care services. Given the timeframe that this proposed system came about, it is only natural to understand why it never became reality. The AMA, oh hello there, once again stepped up to block passage of the bill. Taking advantage of the sweeping anti-communist rhetoric, the AMA spread propaganda that painted Truman’s single payer system as “socialized medicine.” (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) The 1960’s saw some changes to the opposition to government health insurance programs. During the 1950’s and 1960’s employer provided health care insurance was the dominant force in the healthcare world. Increasing premiums and a shift to the use of “experience ratings” made it harder for the sick, elderly and poor to get the coverage they needed to ensure they could receive the care they needed. This allowed President Eisenhower to propose and pass legislation authorizing the federal government to provide subsidies to the states for the purpose of covering healthcare for the elderly poor. Unsurprisingly, the law proved to be a flop with only 28 states signing on to the plan. The late President Kennedy, followed by his successor, President Truman, made great strides to reform the Eisenhower law, introducing Medicare and Medicaid. At the same time other bills were proposed, the Eldercare Act, which would have expanded the law passed under Eisenhower and was supported by the AMA, seriously, they just keep popping up on the wrong side of history, and the Bettercare Act, which would have allowed for federal subsidies for the purpose of purchasing private health care insurance, this one was fittingly proposed by a private health insurance company (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009), narcissistic much? President “I am not a crook” Nixon, to stave off inflation, instituted wage and price freezes nationwide. These freezes targeted hospitals and doctors by placing specific limitations on their annual increases in the cost of providing care. (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2009) Nixon pushed a version of a national health care insurance system after Senator Ted Kennedy submitted a bill of his own. The difference between the two was that Kennedy’s bill would have established a single payer system, eliminating private health insurance all together, Nixon’s plan catered to the private health insurance industry by partnering with them, requiring businesses to pay for insurance coverage for their employees or pay into a government system. (Evans & Schiff, 2009) The Vietnam war and the scandal surrounding Nixon, aka Watergate, put an end to discussions around health care reform. The political debate continued back and forth over the decades, Republicans putting forth bills that would subsidize the private sector, and Democrats trying, and failing, to pass legislation that would establish a single payer system. Although some progress was made: improvements to Medicare and Medicaid to include the creation of Medicare Advantage, a third part to Medicare that covered the gaps made by Medicare parts A and B, Congress also managed to pass the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which provided some protections to people with pre-existing conditions. (Health Markets, 2021) President Bush, the son, managed to push through legislation that established healthcare savings accounts, a comical attempt to give health care access to individuals and families who would otherwise have to pay ridiculously high deductibles, think $1k plus. I call it comical because it established a system that forced families to pay more for health insurance while retaining an insurance plan that required them to pay for most care completely out of pocket. (Health Markets, 2021) Once again, Republicans cater to the private sector and provide them with a means to profit off of the less fortunate. After the 2008 elections, President Obama, with the help of a Democrat Majority in both houses of Congress managed to pass the Affordable Care Act, which was a deviation from the historic pattern of repeatedly trying the same thing while getting the same result. This was not the single payer system that Democrats have dreamt of since Franklin Roosevelt; instead, ACA made health insurance compulsory nationwide. ACA created a massive pool of funding for the private insurance industry. Not to deny its merits, however, ACA did establish protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and allowed for children under the age of 25 to be covered by their parents plans, it even temporarily reduced the cost of insurance premiums. (American College of Healthcare Executives, n.d.) Unfortunately those benefits do not over shadow the fact that the ACA is more beneficial to the healthcare industry than it ever was to the average American citizen. Political infighting being what it is, Republicans opposed ACA from the start, not because the law created a socialist healthcare plan, instead, Republicans hated ACA because the Democrats passed it. It is that simple. As a result, Republicans, under President Trump wasted no time taking ACA out at its knees: removing the funding it needed to regulate the industry, eliminating the compulsory coverage, and granting waivers on behalf of religious groups. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2021) Proving my point about the political reasons behind Republican opposition to ACA, when Republicans had the chance to repeal ACA and replace it with something different, they chose not to, instead leaving what remained of the law intact. (Kapur, 2022) What the hell is wrong with our healthcare system? The answer to that question is complicated but our health insurance industry has contributed to the mess that we, as Americans, must navigate in order to ensure that we remain healthy. I will continue to dive into the healthcare system over the next few entries, so stay with me and maybe together we can find a way to fix it. Works Cited Able, C. (2022, August). Crayon Box Politics. Retrieved from crayonboxpolitics.com: https://www.crayonboxpolitics.com/blog/the-blog-2/reproductive-rights-part-1-2 Aker, J. A. (2021, August 16). Health.mil. Retrieved from www.health.mil: https://www.health.mil/News/Articles/2021/08/16/Gen-George-Washington-Ordered-Smallpox-Inoculations-for-All-Troops American College of Healthcare Executives. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ache.org: https://account.ache.org/iweb/upload/Morrisey2253_Chapter_1-3b5f4e08.pdf Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2021, February 2). Retrieved from www.cbpp.org: https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca Evans, J., & Schiff, J. (2009, August 26). Kaiser Health News. Retrieved from www.khn.org: https://khn.org/news/kennedy-health-care-timeline/ Griffin, J. (2020, March 27). J. P. Griffin Group. Retrieved from www.griffinbenefits.com: https://www.griffinbenefits.com/blog/history-of-healthcare Health Markets. (2021, July 14). Retrieved from healthmarkets.com: https://www.healthmarkets.com/resources/health-insurance/american-healthcare-history Kapur, S. (2022, October 2). Republicans abandon Obamacare repeal. NBC News. Porretta, A. (2022, October 1). eHealth. Retrieved from ehealthinsurance.com: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/individual-and-family/how-much-does-individual-health-insurance-cost The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2009, March). Retrieved from www.kff.org: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/7871.pdf

Welcome back for the final installment in our series on abortion, in the first installment, I opened with a discussion about abortion in early America, a largely accepted and practiced procedure by wealthy white women. Women who were slaves were forced to carry their children to term, facing the fact that once their child was born it would be whisked away to be sold in the slave markets. During the early days of our nation, white women, and to an extent, slave women, had full purview over all things governing the home front, to include pregnancy and childbirth. Male doctors largely remained outside the practice of women’s reproductive health care, allowing female midwives to dominate that medical area of expertise. In the second installment, I reviewed the ruling in Roe v. Wade, a case brought before SCOTUS after access to abortion had largely been criminalized nationwide. I covered the politicization of abortion access following the Roe ruling and the rise of the pro-life movement with political power. Post Roe, the pro-life movement made political efforts to restrict what was deemed by SCOTUS to be a constitutional right to abortion through the passing of specific and targeted bans and restrictions that made it largely impossible for women, particularly those in less privileged families, to access abortion care. In this installment, I will review the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) ruling and examine the case both for and against abortion. This installment will end with the opinions and assessments of myself, Carl Able, based entirely on the research conducted over the last few months and tied to my own personal beliefs. The reason for the preface about opinion is that I want to be clear that while I am striving to color outside the political lines, it is important to paint opinions as opinions and not as facts. We are open to debate, to discussion, about the points that we make here on this platform, as such if you wish to raise a concern or want to shine light on facts that may sway our position then please, let us know via the contact form on this page. So what was the case of Dobbs all about? What caused SCOTUS to override fifty years of legal precedent? If you recall from the previous installment, there were two major rulings when it came to abortion: Roe and Doe. Roe defined a fetus as potential life, not a human being. Roe also set a standard for abortion access at a defined point: not to be limited prior to the end of the first trimester. Doe went further to determine that the state could not justifiably limit abortions if the procedure was sought based on maternal health. In a separate case, Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, SCOTUS held that the protections afforded under the Constitution did not limit bans to the first trimester, instead it allowed for a new standard by which abortion bans could be established: the undue burden rule. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the state health officer of Mississippi, Thomas E. Dobbs. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi’s law banning abortions after 15 weeks, a ban that rose out of the Casey ruling. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022) The Center for Reproductive Rights, in support of the Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, alleged that the Mississippi law violated the rights of pregnant women established by the precedent set by the ruling in Roe and Casey. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) It reached SCOTUS after a district court ruled in favor of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization placing a pause on the enforcement of the Mississippi abortion ban. Mississippi initially contended that the law was consistent with the Roe decision but changed its contention, seeking to overturn the Roe decision completely following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to SCOTUS. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022) SCOTUS ruled that the decisions in both Roe and Casey were incorrect and that the interpretation of the Constitution by the justices who ruled on Roe and Casey was invalid based on faulty historical analysis. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) In overturning Roe and Casey, SCOTUS considered five factors: The nature of the Court’s error: The justices who passed the ruling in Roe misinterpreted the historical references of our nation, ignoring the historical context of the rise of legislation restricting abortion access and identifying abortion as “deeply rooted” in American history and traditions. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) The quality of the reasoning: SCOTUS found that Roe established a set of rules that appeared like those of statutes or regulations that would be passed by a legislative body. SCOTUS also found that Roe ignored the state consensus of laws banning abortion in 1868. It was also determined that Roe failed to justify its distinction between pre and post viability abortions. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) Workability: SCOTUS, in reviewing both Casey and Roe, determined that the modification of the standard from trimester based to the undue burden test basis resulted in a vague interpretability of the undue burden test was not capable of drawing a solid line between permissible and unconstitutional. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) Effect on other areas of law: The evaluation of the effects of the decisions in Roe and Casey by SCOTUS was that the decisions distorted many unrelated but important legal doctrines. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) Reliance interests: SCOTUS ruled that overturning Roe and Casey would not impact interests. Based on Casey, SCOTUS determined that returning the ability for the states to regulate access to abortion would not impair or cause detriment to reproductive health because abortions are not spontaneous and as such, affected parties would have time to adjust their plans to account for changes in restrictions. SCOTUS emphasized that while Roe and Casey influenced other decisions, a ruling to overturn both would apply strictly to those cases and would not affect other decisions. (DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 2022) Based on its findings while reviewing the above factors, SCOTUS determined that it had a clear mandate to overturn Roe and return the debate to the individual states. The Dobbs ruling was an immense blow to the pro-choice movement, and like the way that Roe invigorated the pro-life movement, injected new motivation to return to the argument about reproductive health. Abortion is an issue based on societal morals, as such access is determined by the morals that a society has. There is no way to find a solution to the argument in three blog posts. Instead, all that can be done is to examine both sides of the argument and put forth a proposition that will spur a conversation to bridge the divide in the hopes of finding common ground upon which the morals of both sides can be respected. The fundamental argument used to contend abortion access is that abortion is akin to murder. The pro-life movement uses the logic that a fetus is a human being (person), human beings have a fundamental right to life, therefore a fetus has the right to life, if it is wrong to kill a human being (person) with the right to life, then it is wrong to kill an embryo or fetus. (Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.) This logic is based in the fetal personhood argument. Specifically, that the fetus' potential to become a human person and enjoy the valuable life common to human persons entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible. (Manninen, 2007) Arguments used to justify this logic are that the fetus has the capability to feel pain, however, scientifically it has been determined that the neuroanatomical apparatus required for pain and sensation is not complete until about 26 weeks. (Grimes, 2015) Based on the fact that the upper limit worldwide for termination is 24 weeks, and most pregnancies are terminated well before this (Grimes, 2015), the argument on the ability of the fetus to feel pain does not apply. Additionally, the logic used to justify personhood is, itself, flawed. Specifically, that when broken down, the logic in an algebraic formula sounds like this: if X has the potential to become Y, then X is Y and should be treated as such. The problem here is that we don’t apply that logic to other areas where X has the potential to become Y. Take children for example, they have the potential to become adults, yet we treat them as children because of their maturity and growth levels. Interestingly, the origin of the abortion is murder argument is that it was invented, perpetuated, and executed by male doctors in the mid-nineteenth century in a bid for financial gain and the domination of a market over which, at the time, they had no control. (Patel, 2021) Going back to the first installment you will remember that the AMA, in its arguments against abortion used fetal personhood to paint women seeking abortions as “murderesses devoid of morals, punishing babies for their own failings.” (Patel, 2021) The pro-choice argument revolves around two key arguments: personal autonomy and maternal health. According to the pro-choice camp, Abortion bans preclude patient moral decision making by implicitly forcing one individual’s morals and views of what is right and wrong onto another person who may or may not share the same views. (Ryan, 2022) The movement argues that there is no single definition of fetal personhood that medical professionals rally around. (Ryan, 2022) Leaning on the moral argument that the only person who can determine fetal personhood is the person in which the fetus lives. (Ryan, 2022) The pro-choice movement employs the logic that only human beings have the right to life, a fetus is not a human being (person), therefore a fetus does not have a right to life, if a being has no right to life, it is not wrong to kill it, therefore it is not wrong to kill a fetus. (Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.) That logic is continued by stating that in certain circumstances the right to life afforded a person may be overridden by other factors, given hypothetically that a fetus is a human with a right to life, its right to life may be overridden by other factors, if a being’s right to life is overridden it is not wrong to kill the being, therefore it is not wrong to kill the fetus if certain factors occur. (Missouri School of Medicine, n.d.) When it comes to maternal health, the United States is the only developed country with a rising maternal mortality rate that disproportionately affects black women. (Ryan, 2022) The rates are significantly lower in states with protected access to abortion this includes rates in the black community. (Ryan, 2022) A study of maternal death rates between 1998 and 2004, revealed that during that time frame, the risk of death from child birth was 14% higher than death from abortion. (Ryan, 2022) The study also found that the risk of physical and physiological harm was greatly reduced when women were able to gain access to the desired form of abortion. (Ryan, 2022) Pro-life proponents point to health risks associated with abortion as a means by which to claim that abortion is unsafe and harms the mother. The first is a condition called post abortion syndrome (PAS). PAS is a physiological condition that pro-life proponents point to in which women who undergo the abortion process suffer from depression and anxiety. However, in a Norwegian study to determine if PAS is a certifiable condition, scientists found that the rate of psychiatric contact is similar before and after a first-trimester abortion. This finding does not support theory that there is an increased risk of mental disorders after a first trimester induced abortion.(Mortensen, Pedersen, Lidegaard, Munk-Olsen, & Laursen, 2011) Because of the lack of evidence supporting the validity of PAS, the condition does not appear in the DSM-V (the handbook of mental health), and the link between abortion and mental health problems is dismissed by organizations tasked with mental health protection. (Grimes, 2015) Studies have also determined that whilst women don’t generally suffer long-term mental health effects related to the abortion, short term guilt and sadness was far more likely if the women came from a background where abortion was viewed negatively, or their decisions decried. (Grimes, 2015) In other words, post abortive depression is directly related to the way that the mother was raised to view abortion. The second is called the abortion-breast-cancer conjecture (ABC). During the political debate that followed the ruling in Roe, the pro-life movement pointed to a rise in breast cancer as being associated with the rise in access and conduct of abortive procedures.(Grimes, 2015) The arguments made employed studies that found direct links to breast cancer and abortion. Those studies were conducted using the case-controlled method, deemed to be a methodologically unsound method because of its inherent risk of recall bias. (allcountries.org, n.d.) Historical cohort studies, on the other hand, have been deemed to be more methodologically sound. Two major studies have been carried out using this methodology, and neither found an increased risk of breast cancer associated with first trimester abortion. (allcountries.org, n.d.) The WHO, the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support a position that claims that abortion increases the risk of cancer are not credible. (Grimes, 2015) The third condition is that abortion reduces fertility. This condition rises out of factual scientific studies linking an out-of-date surgical procedure, the dilation and curettage (D&C) method, which had an inherent but small risk of scarring that could potentially lead to complication. (Grimes, 2015) That technique has become obsolete, replaced with a much safer and effective suction method in the early 1970s, a method that was recommended by the WHO for all surgical abortions. (Grimes, 2015) Those are the arguments, so the question is, what do we do with all that information? At first glance it seems like the pro-life argument has no legs to stand on from a scientific point of view. The pro-choice movement holds to the personal autonomy argument, their stance holds more to a scientific basis but at the same time, morality plays a part in the argument in favor of choice. The problem is that morality often trumps science. If a person has a moral objection to something, it is nearly impossible to overcome that objection with science. Morals are learned, morals are emotional, and morals are a founding principle of how people live their lives. That fact alone is what lends to the difficulty that lies in the argument about abortion access. Discussions about abortion often trigger an emotional response that cause both sides to completely shut down and stop listening to each other. Personally, I ascribe to the belief that abortion is wrong, not because of the science, but because of my belief that every fetus has the potential to be the next Einstein, or Thomas Eddison, and that abortion ends that potential. However, I also ascribe to the belief that a woman has the right to determine what she wants to do with her body. Just as every individual makes daily choices, those choices are made with the knowledge that choices have consequences. I believe that abortion should be held in the same regard, we should allow individuals to make choices understanding the consequences of those choices. My recommended solution is that we recognize the fundamental right to personal autonomy, however, recognizing potential, we evaluate when that right infringes upon the right of another person. In the case of abortion, I argue that we set the line at which an abortive procedure can no longer be conducted at the point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb. Now respecting the personal autonomy of the mother, we should establish that after viability, all procedures should be conducted in a manner which seek to preserve the lives of both the mother and the child. If the mother does not want to carry her child to term then she should be allowed to have an early induced labor, delivering the child so that it has a chance to live while respecting the autonomous choice of the mother. In accordance with our laws, the burden of proof would lie on the accuser to demonstrate that any instance in which a child dies after viability occurred with intent to harm. So far we have focused on the rights of the mother, but the discussion around abortion often ignores the father. What happens when a father does not want to be a parent either because he does not feel prepared or does not believe he would be a good parent. In this instance I propose that we provide the father with a way to back out of his parental responsibilities both moral and financial. The ability to back out would be restricted to 21 weeks, after 21 weeks, the father would be held responsible for the care of the child. Understanding that the mother can choose to deliver early after viability, this “paternal option” would provide time for the mother to decide if she wants to carry her child to term knowing that she would be the sole parent or wants to deliver early and waive her responsibilities as well. My proposal is not all encompassing, and there will no doubt be alternative arguments, but as of this time that is my stance and my recommendation to bridge the gap between pro-life and pro-choice. This closes out the final installment on our opening series. There is far more to discuss on the topic, far more progress to be made, but for now this is the end of the Crayon Box Politics analysis of abortion. Coming up we will delve into our national healthcare system; the research has begun, and I will be trying a new process of blog writing. Starting next week I will post a weekly blog with my thoughts on my research from the previous week. The podcast will be published monthly as a means by which to bring all the research together. Don’t forget to listen to the Podcast and like, comment, and share from your favorite podcast platform. You can share this blog too! The more people know about Crayon Box Politics, the more we will be able to initiate conversation and truly find a way to bridge the gap and color outside the political lines. Works Cited allcountries.org. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2022, from Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk: https://www.allcountries.org/health/induced_abortion_does_not_increase_breast_cancer_risk.html Derbyshire, S. W. (2016, April 15). Can fetuses feel pain? British Medical Journal, 332(7546), 909–912. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. (2022, June 27). Retrieved from American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL., 19–1392 (United States Supreme Court June 24, 2022). Grimes, D. R. (2015, August 12). A scientist weighs up the five main anti-abortion arguments. The Guardian. Manninen, B. A. (2007). Revisiting the argument from fetal potential. Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 7. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-2-7 Missouri School of Medicine. (n.d.). (U. o. Missouri, Producer) Retrieved from Abortion - MU School of Medicine: https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/abortion Mortensen, P. B., Pedersen, C. B., Lidegaard, Ø., Munk-Olsen, T., & Laursen, T. M. (2011, January 27). Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder. New England Journal of Medicine(364), 332-339. Patel, N. (2021). The Insidious Origins of the “Moral” Argument Against Abortion Rights. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 22(2). Ryan, I. (2022, September). Why the Post-Roe Era Requires Protecting Conscientious Provision as We Protect Conscientious Refusal in Health Care. AMA Journal of Ethics, 24(9), 906-912.

Welcome to the second entry in the blog series about reproductive rights in the United States. In the last entry we discussed the existence of reproductive rights at the birth of the nation, and how those rights were limited over time through the imposition of laws that arose out of the pivot of United States societal beliefs that life begins at the “quickening” to the belief that life begins at conception. Also key to the reduction of the availability to legal abortions was the rise of the male dominated American Medical Association, which lobbied to regulate who could practice what they defined as “medicine” making it harder for non-licensed individuals, such as midwives, to have a role in reproductive health care. In this entry we will examine the events leading to the case of Roe v. Wade. Through the examination of the events and the review of the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) we will be able to follow the direction that reproductive health progressed. We will review the arguments made by both the pro-life and pro-choice movements, assess the laws restricting reproductive health within the confines of the decision of Roe, and identify why those restrictions came to be. We will end with the events leading to the decision passed down by Dobbs v. Jackson. The Case of Roe v. Wade started as a class action challenge to Texas State Criminal Laws prohibiting abortion except in cases which were necessary for the preservation of the life of the mother (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). As discussed in the first entry in this series, at the time of Roe, nearly all the states in the union had enacted laws that prohibited abortion, these laws resulted in countless deaths from illegal, black-market abortions conducted in often unsafe environments with no oversight or medical understanding (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). In order to understand the case of Roe v. Wade, we must first understand the environment that allowed for the case to be brought to SCOTUS. The fight for reproductive rights started in challenges to rules that came from the Comstock law, which if you will remember from the last entry, was the law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives and abortion medications via the United States mail service. In 1965, SCOTUS ruled that laws banning distribution of contraceptives to married couples were unconstitutional based on its violation of that couple’s implied right to privacy under the Constitution (Griswold v. Connecticut), a ruling quickly followed up by SCOTUS in 1972 (Eisenstadt v. Baird) established that the banning of contraception distribution to unmarried adults violated that same right to privacy (Onion, Sullivan, Mullen, & History.com, 2022). At the same time Colorado became the first state to broaden a woman’s legal access to abortion followed by 11 other states (A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, 2013). Additionally, in 1970, Hawaii, New York, and Alaska completely decriminalized abortions, though Hawaii only legalized abortions for its residents (Onion, Sullivan, Mullen, & History.com, 2022). Knowing the environment, it’s time to review the case. Roe v. Wade was, in all actuality, one of two cases brought before SCOTUS: Roe v. Wade, a case involving a challenge to Texas State law limiting abortions to instances in which the mother’s life was in danger, and Doe v. Bolton, a case out of Georgia challenging the state law in which abortion was considered criminal except in cases where the mother’s health or life were in danger (A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, 2013). The difference between the two cases is that in Doe v. Bolton, the plaintiffs were a couple who were childless and sued the state of Georgia on the basis that the law infringed on their rights in the event of future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health whereas the in the case of Roe v. Wade, the plaintiff was a single pregnant woman who argued that anti-abortion laws infringed on her rights by banning abortions except in situations where medical advice recommended abortion on the basis of preserving the mother’s life (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). In the case of Doe v. Bolton, a lower three judge district court ruled that the lawsuit was not capable of judgement in the court due to its speculative nature, however, that district court also determined that the laws under challenge were unconstitutional, deeming them violations of a person’s 9th and 14th amendment rights (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). SCOTUS upheld the ruling on the capability of judgement due to its speculative nature, but also held that the laws were unconstitutional as well (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). In Roe v. Wade, the same three judge district court ruled that despite the natural termination of Jane Roe’s pregnancy, she had standing to sue based on the fact that “litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). SCOTUS, on the same day as its ruling in the case of Doe v. Bolton, upheld the district court’s ruling on all counts (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). What does it all mean? In short, both rulings held that laws prohibiting abortions, were unconstitutional given their violation of the implied rights to privacy under the 9th and 14th amendments (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 2022). However, the rulings applied some guidelines to the states in their implementation of laws governing abortions. These guidelines held that viability was the point at which a woman’s right to determine if she wanted to carry a child to term would end, specifically identifying the first term as the time period prior to a fetus’s viability (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). Beyond viability, SCOTUS ruled that it was the states purview to establish laws restricting access to abortion so long as they were narrowly defined as to serve a compelling government interest (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). The ruling essentially made abortions legal throughout the nation up to the end of the first trimester. Doe v. Bolton furthered the constitutional right to abortion by ruling that the state could not limit access if the procedure was sought for reasons of maternal health, SCOTUS continued in that ruling by defining health as “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient” (Summary of Roe v. Wade and Other Key Abortion Cases, n.d.). Combined, these rulings effectively made abortion legal from conception through all three trimesters. Almost immediately, abortion access came under attack from pro-life proponents. A major pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), originally formed under the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, became an independent organization in 1973 and began to take advantage of a newly invigorated pro-life movement as a result of the dual rulings in Roe and Doe (Karrer, 2011). In 1974, abortion became a campaign issue, and in 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed (Karrer, 2011). The Hyde Amendment was an amendment to the 1977 fiscal appropriation for Medicaid. Introduced by a pro-life congressman by the name of Harry J. Hyde, the Hyde Amendment, prohibited the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortion procedures except in cases where the life of the mother was in danger (Access Denied: Origins of the Hyde Amendment and Other Restrictions on Public Funding for Abortion, n.d.). Key leadership within pro-life organizations spoke out in protest of both decisions, with men such as Victor Rosenblum, Vice Chairman of Americans United for Life (AUL), and John Noonan, a pro-life law professor at the University of California at Berkely, comparing the ruling that fetuses were not human under the law to the ruling in the Dredd Scott case that black people were not considered human in the context of the Constitution (Karrer, 2011). Noonan even went so far as to call for a Constitutional amendment, called the Human Life Amendment (HLA) to be added to the Constitution in order to ensure that the constitution had the teeth it needed to protect human life (Karrer, 2011). An attempt was made in the late 1970’s to bring such an amendment to reality, first failing in Congress and then in a failed attempt to initiate a Constitutional convention (Karrer, 2011). In 1992, in the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, SCOTUS reaffirmed the Roe decision by finding that a state cannot ban or interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion, however, it did uphold laws that required a 24 hour waiting period and parental consent for minors seeking abortions (Chicago Tribune, 2001). Over the course of the nearly fifty years following the decision in Roe, pro-life organization lobbied states to pass various laws in order to restrict abortion access. Some of these came in the form of bans: Method bans, Reason Bans, and criminalization of self-managed abortions (SMA) (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). Other laws appeared in the form of restrictions: Targeted Restrictions of Abortion Providers (TRAP), parental involvement, and consent laws (Center For Reproductive Rights, 2022). Abortion bans were frequently overturned by the court system (Bans on Specific Abortion Methods Used After the First Trimester, n.d.). One well known method ban was held up by SCOTUS in 2007, this method is commonly known as a partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortions are defined as a method of abortion in which a child is partially delivered from the womb with the sole intent of conducting a procedure in which would result in the death of the partially born fetus (Tanne, 2007). The ban in question was passed by congress and banned partial birth abortions nation wide (Tanne, 2007). The law was challenged based on its failure to include a provision for the health of the mother, and the decision by SCOTUS to uphold the law was applauded by pro-life organizations while at the same time being derided by pro-choice organizations as being the first step to the erosion of the “Constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth” (Tanne, 2007). As medical capabilities increased, so too did the ability for doctors to detect and understand the growth of the human fetus during pregnancy. A result of these innovations in healthcare a new form of abortion bans rose in the 2000’s and 2010’s called a fetal heartbeat abortion ban (SMYTH, 2022). These laws placed a ban on abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which usually occurs around six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy (SMYTH, 2022). In 2001, Texas introduced a fetal heartbeat ban, but created an enforcement technique that proved to be difficult to challenge. Called a vigilante law, enforcement was not executed by the state, instead it was beholden to private citizens to enforce the law through lawsuits (BOHRA, 2021). SCOTUS did not take up the law and reaffirmed that the Justice Department, in its attempt to sue for an injunction, was not suing the correct plaintiff as the state was not the enforcer (BOHRA, 2021). The culmination of the fight over abortion rights was the challenge to a Mississippi Law that prohibited all abortions with minor exceptions after 15 weeks. The challenge, and the case, now known as Dobbs v. Jackson, resulted in a SCOTUS ruling that completely overturned the ruling in Roe by invalidating the decision and determining that there is no protection for abortion in the Constitution (Oyez, n.d.). Next time, in the final entry we will examine that case with more depth, review the changes to our nation’s abortion laws following the SCOTUS decision and make an attempt to find a middle ground that will allow for the national restoration of a woman’s right to choose. Works Cited A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. (2013, January 16). Retrieved from Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/ Center For Reproductive Rights. (2022, July). Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved from Roe v. Wade - Center for Reproductive Rights: https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/ Karrer, R. N. (2011). “The Pro-Life Movement and Its First Years under ‘Roe.’” American Catholic Studies, 122(4), 47-72. Onion, A., Sullivan, M., Mullen, M., & History.com, E. (2022, June 24). History. Retrieved from History.com: https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970). (2022). Retrieved September 2022, from Justia Law: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/314/1217/1472349/ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). (2022). Retrieved from Justia Law: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). (2022). Retrieved from Justia Law: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/#114 Summary of Roe v. Wade and Other Key Abortion Cases. (n.d.). Retrieved from Usccb.org: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Summary-of-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

In this entry, the first of a three-part discussion - we will focus on abortion and the individual’s right to choose whether they want to carry a child to term in their body. We should also be clear that this choice isn't just about using abortion as a method or a means of controlling birth AKA birth control, this choice has larger implications on the health of the person carrying the child. Let's dig in, let's look at the world of reproductive rights at the birth of our nation and let's follow those rights, particularly the right to choose, watching the ebb and flow until we get to the decision in Roe v. Wade. Here is the too long, didn’t read version that sums everything up: The United States began as a nation with unregulated but legal abortions being practiced, and common. Midwives, not doctors, were responsible for women’s reproductive health. Women were trusted to make decisions about their bodies and male doctors focused on other areas of medicine. At the turn of the 20th century, the United States had become a nation that had criminalized abortion, placed male doctors as the experts in women’s reproductive health, causing women across the nation to seek dangerous, and often deadly abortions outside of the confines of the law. Let’s start off with a couple definitions so that we are all on the same page. The National Institute for Health (NIH) defines reproductive health as, “the condition of male and female reproductive systems during all life stages.” They define reproductive systems as, “organs and hormone-producing glands, including the pituitary gland in the brain. Ovaries in females and testicles in males are reproductive organs, or gonads, that maintain the health of their respective systems.” Essentially, the definition describes the ability for humanity to reproduce. We have definitions of reproductive health and reproductive systems. What about reproductive rights? The World Health Organization Who defines reproductive rights as, “the rights of an individual to make decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health.” Essentially, the right of the individual to decide how they want to maintain their ability to reproduce. Together, these definitions paint a picture where reproductive rights affect everyone. Yes, this series will focus on abortion rights specifically, but that’s not the only thing that matters when discussing reproductive health. I say this because I want to make sure that we are all on the same page, that we all understand that reproductive rights and reproductive health is not just about the right of anyone that can carry a child to decide whether they want to carry that child to term. Reproductive rights are very broad. For example, if you choose to abstain, reproductive rights includes your right to remain celibate. Reproductive rights also include the right to be promiscuous, the right to wear a condom, the right to use birth control or any other form of contraceptive, the right to seek a sperm donor or an egg donor, and even the right to determine whether an individual wants to carry out a procedure that, in medical terms, would leave them sterile and unable to reproduce. Every one of these rights, at some point in our nation's history were challenged, taken away, and restored to the people. At the birth of our nation, abortion was not just legal, it was a safe, condoned, and frequently practiced procedure in colonial America it was common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period (Dine, 2013). In the early days of our nation, extramarital sex, and adultery were illegal; while the churches of the time frowned on abortion, it was because they viewed abortions as evidence of illicit or premarital sex instead of murder (Blakemore, 2022). It wasn't until around 1821 that the first abortion law appeared on the books (Dine, 2013). These early anti-abortion laws made it illegal to abort a pregnancy after the quickening, that time when a woman first felt the baby move. Due to the difficulty to prove such cases, given that only the woman could testify as to feeling the child moving, these laws were rarely prosecuted and resulted in a misdemeanor violation when they were (Holland, 2016). Abortion before the quickening was not outlawed until the 1860s (Dine, 2013) nearly 100 years after the birth of our nation. That is not to say that abortion cases didn’t exist: in the 1740’s prosecutors tried a doctor and a Connecticut man in connection with the death of a woman named Sarah Grosvenor, who died as a result of a failed abortion (Blakemore, 2022). The trial focused on the failure of the men conducting the abortion and not the fact that an abortion had taken place. In the 19th century, women had great control over matters of the house, particularly rich white women, who’s strictly defined roles held that the home and issues of reproductive health were a woman’s realm (Blakemore, 2022). It was women, not doctors, who passed down knowledge about pregnancy, childbirth, and reproductive control (Blakemore, 2022). Between the late 1700’s and early to mid 1800’s, gynecological examinations were acceptable only when conducted by a woman, specifically a female midwife (Zoila Acevedo RN, 1979). (Stone, 2022). The mid 1800’s saw many significant changes, two of which had a massive impact on the direction of reproductive rights in the United States. The first change was the Second Great Awakening, which brought to light the notion that a person could be “born again” and the concept that life begins at conception. Prior to the 1840’s the idea that life began at conception was a Catholic notion but was adopted by Protestants during the Second Great Awakening” (Blakemore, 2022). The second change was the rise of the American Medical Association (AMA). In the early years of the AMA, the organization took the position that the fetus was a person from conception (Blakemore, 2022). The Second Great Awakening, the rise of the AMA, loss of life as a result of the American Civil War, and decreasing Caucasian birth rates, spurred the adoption of anti-abortion laws nationwide. There are multiple theories among historians as to the reason for the AMA’s position on abortion, many believe that the male dominated AMA worked to discredit their competition through the passing of anti-abortion laws (Stone, 2022). Messaging during that time established the idea that doctors, not midwives, had a superior understanding of embryos and the female body and thus doctors, not midwives should be the authority on abortion and childbirth (Welch, 2022). A group of doctors, backed by the AMA, catholic church, and sensationalist newspapers drove a campaign that pushed for the criminalization of abortion (Dine, 2013) and by 1900, the United States had transitioned from a nation without abortion laws to a nation in which abortion was “legally and officially prescribed” (Blakemore, 2022). A decade later, every state in the nation had anti-abortion laws with exceptions for pregnancies that endangered the life of the mother (Welch, 2022). After that, abortion in the United States was outlawed until Roe v. Wade. This is where the definition of reproductive health comes into play. Simply because abortion was outlawed did not mean that abortions stopped. Physicians discretely offered under-the-table surgical abortions to those who could afford their services, while those who could not, used old herbal recipes, douched with chemicals like Lysol, and even attempted to remove the fetuses on their own (Blakemore, 2022). According to research by the Guttmacher Institute, in the 1930’s illegal abortions accounted for 1 in 5 maternal deaths, by 1965 illegal abortions accounted for 17% of all maternal deaths (Welch, 2022). Anti-abortion laws did not improve the lives of American women, instead they made the lives of women worse by interfering with their reproductive health and forcing women to seek alternative methods to end unwanted and sometimes dangerous pregnancies. Next up - the second part of this discussion will focus on what the decision in Roe meant for reproductive health in America, and how the rights that decision granted were regulated state by state until finally coming to the Dobbs decision in 2022. Works Cited Blakemore, E. (2022, May 17). History and Culture. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/th-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states Dine, R. (2013, August 8). Retrieved from Center For American Progress: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right Holland, J. L. (2016). Organization of American Historians. Retrieved from The American Historian: https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/ Stone, G. R. (2022, June 24). A History of American Thought on Abortion: It's Not What You Think. (J. Dailey, Interviewer) Christian Science Monitor. Welch, A. (2022, March 13). The History of Abortion Rights in the U.S. Retrieved from healthline.com: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-history-of-abortion-rights-in-the-u-s Zoila Acevedo RN, P. (1979). Abortion in Early America. Women & Health, 4(2), 159-167.