charging women – Four years after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, 13 states moved to ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. The piece points to a rise in abortion practice tied to medical technology, RU-486, while warning that some in the anti-abortion movement
For many women, the legal fight over abortion didn’t end when the Supreme Court changed course. It accelerated. It spread. And as more states tightened restrictions after Roe v. Wade was reversed, the pressure began to shift from regulating abortion providers to pursuing the women themselves.
Four years ago, the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that made abortion legal throughout the country. Within days, 13 states promptly banned abortion, including in cases of rape or incest. The restrictions were not limited to adult decision-making either—one example raised in the account is the insistence that a 12-year-old who might check out Judy Blume’s “Forever” from a public library should be forced to have a baby.
The argument then turns to consequences on the ground. The piece says the share of American women for whom abortion is practiced is up 21 percent since 2020. It attributes that rise to medical technology: RU-486, described as a safe, effective, two-drug regimen that can be sent through the mail.
If the outcome was meant to deter abortion. the author suggests it did the opposite for those trying to impose their religious view of abortion through law. Instead, the article says the bans have not led to the kind of humbling moment some might have expected. Now, it reports, some in the anti-abortion movement are considering a next step: charging women who have abortions with murder.
That leap hasn’t yet happened, the piece says, for two reasons. First. it argues that the “killing babies” framing is a religious construct—something compared to rhetoric used because it works. and illustrated through enforcement patterns. Doctors can be prosecuted for performing abortions. and friends can be prosecuted for driving women to clinics. the author notes; but the “murderess herself. ” meaning the woman who is having an abortion. is generally left alone.
The second reason, as described, is an underlying belief driving the movement’s logic: that women have no volition in the decision, and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for having an abortion.
The author points to how that framework would look in other parts of American life. If a woman cheats on her taxes. the piece says. it’s treated as a crime; it would be odd. the author argues. if the focus fell only on an accountant or a husband for the act of enabling rather than the fraud itself. The concern now, the article says, is that this unequal application of responsibility could be changing.
A headline from the New York Times is cited: “Support Builds on the Right for Prosecuting Women Who Get Abortions.” The author expresses skepticism about how broadly the country is reacting. describing a muted national response even as it says the country is “tumbling toward some dystopian nightmare.” It also offers a bleak prediction: that some women might shrug and return to entertainment. naming “The Kardashians.”.
The piece closes by returning to a larger principle it says has been ignored. Religion, like sex, is described as something that is supposed to be a private choice rather than publicly enforced dogma. It notes that the Supreme Court has been willing to rely on original intent in other areas—specifically citing endorsement of 18th century racial practices—while saying it ignores that same constitutional approach in abortion.
It also contrasts the present with the past. The author says abortion was completely legal in colonial America, even if it wasn’t especially safe. The comparison, as framed here, lands on a central grievance: that 250 years later, the country is less free than it once was.
abortion Roe v. Wade Supreme Court RU-486 murder charges anti-abortion movement religion and law women’s rights rape and incest bans Judy Blume