Journalist Kylie Cheung recently wrote an insightful piece for The Intercept, titled “Beyond Dobbs: How Abortion Bans Enforce State-Sanctioned Violence.” In this thought-provoking article, Cheung delves into the far-reaching consequences of restrictive abortion laws and the impact they have on women’s rights and bodily autonomy.
The article centers around the recent Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the state of Mississippi is seeking to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Cheung argues that the media and politicians often downplay the consequences of such restrictive laws, labeling them as “unintended consequences.” However, as Cheung points out, these consequences are not unintended but rather a direct result of state-sanctioned violence against women.
Cheung begins by highlighting the severe impact that abortion bans have on marginalized communities, particularly low-income women and women of color. These are the very communities that already face systemic barriers in accessing quality healthcare. By imposing restrictive laws, states are effectively limiting these women’s options and forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, regardless of their circumstances.
Moreover, Cheung argues that these laws not only restrict access to safe and legal abortions but also perpetuate a culture of violence against women. By denying women the right to make decisions about their own bodies, the state is essentially asserting control over their reproductive choices. This, in turn, reinforces the idea that women are not capable of making their own choices and must be controlled by men and the government.
Cheung also points out the hypocrisy of these laws, which often claim to protect the sanctity of life but fail to address the root causes of unwanted pregnancies. Instead of providing comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, these laws seek to punish women for seeking abortions. This not only puts women’s lives at risk but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality, particularly for those already marginalized.
Furthermore, the article highlights the impact of restrictive abortion laws on women’s mental and emotional well-being. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term can have severe psychological effects, including trauma, depression, and anxiety. This is especially true for women who have been victims of sexual assault or have underlying health conditions that make pregnancy and childbirth risky.
Cheung also addresses the argument that these laws are necessary to protect the rights of the unborn. She argues that by prioritizing the rights of a potential life over the rights of a living, breathing woman, these laws are inherently anti-women. It is not the state’s place to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body, and these laws only serve to reinforce patriarchal ideologies that seek to control and oppress women.
In conclusion, Cheung makes a compelling case for why restrictive abortion laws are not just “unintended consequences,” but rather a deliberate form of state-sanctioned violence against women. She highlights the far-reaching effects of these laws, from limiting access to healthcare to perpetuating a culture of violence and control over women’s bodies. It is time for society to recognize and address these issues and fight for women’s rights to make their own choices about their bodies and lives. As Cheung aptly puts it, “The fight for reproductive rights is a fight for fundamental human rights, and we must continue to push back against any attempts to restrict them.”
