In 1969, the federal court of appeals (Third District, California) in Jessin v. County of Shasta ruled that “voluntary sterilization is legal when informed consent has been given, that sterilization is an acceptable method of family planning, and that sterilization may be a fundamental right requiring constitutional protection.” The increasing number of restrictions and effectively bans on abortions by certain states is having a major impact on remaining choices by women, including increasing the number of requests by women for voluntary sterilization. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, some women have considered or are considering permanent sterilization. Sterilization is a serious matter which is not easily chosen by women who do not want children, often considered by women who believe strongly that they want autonomous control over her body. Moreover, as the future of medication abortion remains uncertain, more and more women are opting for surgical fertilization.
Considering sterilization is however very expensive without private health insurance. In addition, it has been reported that some people seeking sterilization procedures across the U.S. are being turned away. Patients who don’t have children and are in their childbearing years are reporting difficulties finding physicians willing to sterilize them. Some reluctance by physicians may stem from studies that suggest patients who are sterilized at age 30 or younger are about twice as likely as those over 30 to express regret after getting the procedure. However, other studies had mixed results and found that some women feel less regret over time.
Believe it or not, some observers are even anticipating that there’s going to be attacks on other forms of “contraception”. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision that banning contraceptives violates a married couple’s right to privacy. However, Justice Clarence Thomas opened that door by suggesting in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that other precedents, such as this ruling, should be revisited. Where does it all end?
More recently, Republicans used their new power in the House of Representatives to push through legislation that could subject doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, underscoring their opposition to abortion rights even as they stopped short of trying to completely ban the procedure. Fortunately, the bill has no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate. However, in several states there are already laws which could end up in doctors being charged with a criminal activity when an abortion is performed, even in cases where the pregnant woman’s life in jeopardy. In the past, the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. occurred in the first trimester, before the point of fetal viability, which is currently at about 23 weeks. Now, several states, including more recently Florida, have passed legislation prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. In the case of Florida, the law ends Florida’s long-held role as a destination for women from across the Deep South seeking abortions and will force them to travel farther, to states such as North Carolina or Illinois, for care.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the new Florida law also prohibits doctors from prescribing medication abortions through telehealth and prevent the dispensing the pills by mail. This makes Florida’s six-week ban even more restrictive than Georgia’s. The law also bars state funds from being used for a person to travel outside of Florida for an abortion, except for when it is a medical emergency or when federal law requires it.
Horrendous impacts are being revealed daily on women being denied access to abortion. There is little doubt that the “right to choose” in under attack in America, literally taking away the rights of women wanting autonomous control over their bodies. The latest impact, somewhat more extreme than others, is one where young women are increasingly choosing surgical fertilization due to this evident lost in choice. Doctors who base their decisions on the needs of their female patients are also caught up in this environment, trying to discern what is legal or not instead of what’s best for the patient’s health, both physical and mental.
FROLITICKS 