The reverse of Roe v. wade could have consequences for all reproductive rights in the United States: elected Republicans want to criminalize certain methods of contraception, such as the morning after pill, while others want the Supreme Court to also abolish the right to contraception.
In the small state of Idaho, the law to ban abortion has been ready since 2020. If passed, all abortions will be prohibited (except in cases of incest, rape or danger to the life of the mother ), and doctors practicing it will be liable to two to five years in prison. Here, as in many conservative states, lawmakers have a “trigger law” ready to be implemented within 30 days of a cancellation. Roe v. wade.
The draft of a decision to this effect of the American Supreme Court disclosed last week by the media Politico did not fail to enthuse some local politicians. Last Friday on Idaho Public Television, state House of Representatives elected official Brent Crane said he would “look into legislation” to restrict access to methods. emergency contraception.
This position echoes that of several elected Republicans, who wish to broaden the definition of an abortion. According to these purists, who believe that human life begins as soon as an egg is fertilized by a sperm, taking the morning after pill would be a form of abortion.
“The definition of abortion has always been disputed, so banning it may affect other reproductive rights,” explains the To have to Mary Ziegler, professor of law at Florida State University. The author of numerous books on the history of abortion in the United States also notes that “several states that want to ban abortion are not particularly clear about what they want to ban”.
This therefore makes certain progressive groups fear that the IUD, which can be used as an emergency contraceptive method in certain circumstances, will also be banned. The elected Brent Crane, initially undecided on the subject, on the other hand finally indicated to a local media, theIdaho Statesmanthat “these things [les stérilets] should remain accessible.
And after the end of Roe v. Wade?
However, a broader wind is blowing in the Republican camp: several elected officials want another historic judgment on reproductive rights, Griswold v. Connecticutbe overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dating from 1965, this judgment stipulates that the use of methods of contraception by married couples is a matter of marital intimacy and therefore cannot be prohibited. Another decision in 1972 later extended this right to unmarried persons.
Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, however, called Griswold of a “constitutionally unsound” judgment last March. Arizona senator candidate Blake Masters said he would only vote for federal judges who “understand that Roe v. wade and Griswold v. Connecticut […] were wrongly decided and that there is no constitutional right to abortion”.
“Both of these judgments are based on the idea that there is a right to privacy and that this right applies to certain key decisions in someone’s life,” notes Professor Ziegler. ” Yes Roe is canceled, Griswold could be at risk. »
The end of Roe v. wade could also result in a nationwide ban on abortion in the United States. Questioned last week on the subject, the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, declared that it became “possible” in the event of the cancellation of the 1973 judgment.
According to Mary Ziegler, such a ban could be implemented in two ways. “It could happen first if [militants] anti-abortion go to the Supreme Court to convince it that abortion is unconstitutional,” she notes. Or by a Republican landslide in the 2024 election, which would allow the party to take control of all the levers of power in the United States. “It would take a Republican president to pass a national abortion ban,” she concludes.