Matters of the Heart

Justifying unrestricted abortion based primarily on a woman’s right to choose is becoming less philosophically and morally sound.

In January 2019, the New York State Legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act, granting virtually unrestricted abortion access into and through the third trimester. This legislative act sparked significant debate and demands for action. There have been voices both desiring similar legislation in other states and responding in horror to the provisions of such laws. Later that year, in an apparent backlash, the states of Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana passed legislation attempting to move in the other direction. These laws sought to introduce the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Since then, the debate has only grown all the more virulent, thanks to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. But while the Supreme Court no longer recognizes abortion as a constitutional right, the debate over abortion continues to follow the same pattern it has in the fifty years since Roe v. Wade. The Left rallies around the idea of “Pro-Choice,” and the Right instead asserts the idea of “Pro-Life.”

Somewhere in this dichotomy lies an intriguing debate about ethics, morality, and human rights. That debate failed to take place for decades because the Supreme Court in the 1970s granted total legal victory to one side of the issue. It’s a debate that is only beginning to take form in the post-Roe era we now live in.