People on the American University campus offered mixed reactions on Tuesday to the Supreme Court’s historic ruling this week that overturned a Texas law regulating abortion clinics.
Those who supported the Court’s ruling, did so for varying reasons. Some advocated for nationwide legislation that would ultimately settle the matter, whereas others denounced the Texas law specifically for its injustice towards women.
“It’s a good thing because women should have the right to decide what they want to do with their body,” Lisa Freeman, 45, said in reference to the Court’s ruling.
Various people responded with similar remarks, expressing their support for women’s privacy and what they say are basic freedoms relating to her body. This argument has been a common theme among pro-choice advocates, as many cite the landmark case in 1973 of Roe v. Wade where a woman’s privacy was the basis for the Court’s ruling to support abortions.
Those interviewed also supported the decision because they thought women shouldn’t be left without a choice in what they described as a vulnerable situation. Whether conception was consensual or not, people agreed women must have options.
Simultaneously, many people were unsure of their stance, and felt both sides had viable arguments.
Jackie Palumbo, 43, was hesitant to fully comply with pro-choice advocates even though she believed Texas’ law was intentionally restricting abortions rather than trying to benefit women’s health.
“I’m hesitant because I am a parent of adopted kids, and I think there is always a home for kids,” Palumbo said. Palumbo understood the importance of giving women an option, but also knew from her personal experience that society could conform to help children that needed homes.
Others on campus viewed the decision sourly for reasons ranging from religion to legitimate health reasons.
“I don’t think it’s a good thing because that’s pretty much a human,” said 27-year-old Mark Cullins, who identified as Christian though said he was not particularly religious.
In short, the law’s provisions claimed to promote women’s health by restricting abortions clinics in Texas. The Court found that such regulations violated the standard of “undue burden” formed by the decision in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling declared that legislation couldn’t be too burdensome on an individual’s fundamental rights.
Following the ruling, the Supreme Court denied reviewing cases pertaining to abortion clinics in Mississippi, Wisconsin and Alabama enforcing its decision to overturn similar laws seen in Texas.