Envisioning a post-Roe v. Wade America

The College of Public Health welcomed Pulitzer Prize recipient and New York Times op-ed columnist Michelle Goldberg on April 13 for a discussion on the far-reaching public health and criminal justice implications of increasingly inequitable abortion access.

The event, part of Dean Amy Fairchild’s Changing the Conversation: Public Health Thought Leader Series, included a panel discussion with public health professors Maria Gallo and Alison Norris moderated by Fairchild. 

Goldberg, whose work has also appeared in Slate, The New Yorker, Newsweek, The Nation, The Guardian and others, preceded the panel with a talk on the U.S. abortion landscape and what is likely to happen if the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade federal abortion rights ruling is overturned. Many observers expect that outcome this summer when the Supreme Court decides the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

She explained how nearly 50% of states, including Ohio, have “trigger” abortion bans — laws that would illegalize abortion as soon as Roe v. Wade is removed. Post-Roe v. Wade America would “be nothing like pre-Roe America,” Goldberg said.

In fact, she said, it’s likely to be worse, in large part due to the modern anti-abortion movement’s attempts to codify abortion as murder. Some Americans have already been convicted for fetal endangerment.

“There are going to be criminal justice implications, and there are going to be health implications for pregnant women,” said Goldberg, who also provided an overview of the obstacles already facing people seeking an abortion — such as travel costs, time off work, stigma, fears of being criminalized and bureaucratically complex laws.

“In terms of women's rights, it creates an entire locus of control where your body is always the site of potential wrongdoing,” she said.

Gallo, associate dean of research and chair of the Division of Epidemiology, commented on her work in low-resource countries where illegal abortion and the potential of criminal sentencing has created a landscape of fear among both patients and medical providers.

“It’s a chilling effect on a clinic,” she said.

The panel delved further into how systemic inequities tie into abortion access and abortion criminalization, magnifying obstacles related to resources and knowledge. They also examined how bodily autonomy is at the heart of other movements such as Me Too and Black Lives Matter, and considered the impacts of criminalizing abortion on health care professionals and institutions. Gallo and Norris spoke about how studies that have come out of the Ohio Policy Evaluation Network, a research initiative focused on reproductive health care, highlight existing obstacles to care and how those obstacles are likely to increase after the ruling. 

Work out of OPEN has found that:

• Crisis pregnancy centers designed to discourage women from getting an abortion tend to see a disproportionate amount of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.
• About one in 10 Ohio women thought abortion was illegal during conversations about a “heartbeat” bill.
• Increased abortion restrictions led to fewer total abortions and more late first-trimester abortions in Ohio, and disproportionately impacted rural communities.

“We have a Supreme Court that has sort of explicitly rejected research, but our group and many others are putting a lot of time and effort and energy into … raising awareness for this cause,” Norris said. 

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, “there’s going to be a huge amount of resistance, but there’s also going to be a huge amount of suffering,” Goldberg said.

Thanks to our event collaborators: The Ohio State University John Glenn College of Public Affairs, College of Nursing, and Department of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies.