Silenced Voices

The 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade sparked a variety of different reactions highlighting intense historical divisions over the issue of abortion. More than 100,000 pro-lifers took to the streets of Washington, D.C. protesting the decision, many of them solemn marchers with rosaries in one hand and posters displaying mutilated fetuses in the other. To the other extreme, there was an aura of celebration on Vanderbilt’s campus, including free condoms and abortion pamphlets on full display.

The Vandy Feminists collaborated with Gender Matters of the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center for a week “of empowering students with information about gender and sex,” in celebration of the liberation of women through the Roe v. Wade decision. Throughout the week of the anniversary, Vanderbilt students walking by Rand had the opportunity to learn about different topics, such as the civil rights movement for women and the use of different contraceptives in promotion of safer sex. There was even a day dedicated towards educating women on how to have more pleasurable sex if they should choose to have it. 

The groups concluded the week with an informational pregnancy panel, which included representatives from different helpful resources in the Nashville community. In attendance were: a representative from the Student Health Center who gave an objective account of what resources are available on campus; a woman from Hope Clinic, a safe haven that helps with the psychological effects of a pregnancy; a current Vanderbilt gradate student who had a baby while enrolled as an undergraduate at Vanderbilt; and a woman from Planned Parenthood who, not surprisingly, began the conference by declaring, “children should be wanted, loved, taken care of, and hopefully planned.”

The panel was well organized, and there did not seem to be an obvious bias towards any one particular viewpoint. All of the women presenting seemed to have different views, but they were genuine and helpful with the information that they provided about their different programs.

The graduate student told a very inspirational story. She was a junior here at Vanderbilt when she found out that she was pregnant. She and the father, both pro-life, decided at the Student Health Center that they would go through with the pregnancy. Most girls faced with an unplanned pregnancy on campus either abort the baby and stay or leave school to have the baby in more private surroundings. Because of this, many of the authority figures on campus did not know how to handle her situation. With help from the Dean, various faculty members, and with her own courage, she was able to have her baby and graduate. The proud mother, now enrolled in the Divinity School, is working with the Women’s Center to start an organization called Finished Up, whose mission will be to help girls on Vanderbilt’s campus who find themselves in a similar situation. She wants girls to know that, “just because it hasn’t been done, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.” A student does not have to choose between abortion and dropping out, but instead can live a happy life at Vanderbilt with her child.

Despite the sentiment drawn from the graduate student’s story, one could still sense an inevitable tension between the representatives from Hope Clinic and Planned Parenthood. Among other issues, they disagreed about the merits of adoption. The woman from Hope Clinic supported adoption fully while the woman from Planned Parenthood observed that adoption is more psychologically difficult for the mother than other available options. They also disagreed about the definition of pregnancy, which led to a disagreement about the nature of birth control and Plan B. There were minor spats throughout the entire presentation, but the real “smackdown” came with the panelists’ closing statements.

The first three representatives on the panel used their closing time to reassure those women going through a hard time that there is help out there. The representative of Planned Parenthood—again not surprisingly—used her time for a short political tirade. She stated that women are lucky to have three good, safe options for an unwanted pregnancy but warned that, “dangerous times are coming.” She spoke of a “noisy minority” that wanted to take away a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. She ended with “Do you think it is okay for the government to force a woman to give birth? Does the government have the right to choose for someone?” She was winding down when the Hope Clinic representative quickly added: “Or does the government have the right to tell the unborn baby that it can not be born?”

After 35 years, the issue of abortion is still dominated by questions such as these. Roe v. Wade has answered them by not only denying many unborn children the right to live, but also denying the world of the potential impact that these minds could have had. The Vandy Feminists celebrated the liberation of women from the bonds of motherhood, but this liberation has created a greater burden for the whole world. Over 48 million lives have been denied by Roe, and while some of these lives might have contributed to crime in the United States due to the conditions in which the child would have been born, others might have lived to be the curer of cancer, the first person on Mars, or the next Mother Theresa.

John Stuart Mill wrote of his fear for the “tyranny of the majority,” because the voice of the minority might make vast contributions to culture and society. The United States Supreme Court was created in order to protect this minority. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the silent minority of the unborn is oppressed, and because of this, the country is worse off as a whole.

Not only did the Supreme Court step out of its historical and philosophical boundaries, but it also stepped out of its political boundaries as well. One may look at the developing fetus as a “non-person” similar to Dred Scott in his infamous case. If that is the view, then at what stage in development does life achieve legally protected status? The definition of life is what is essential here, and when it comes to defining the principle that our country should live by, the system of democracy should take charge. The Supreme Court justices have the power to interpret what the historical and constitutional principles are, but they have no right to create them. Legislating something as pivotal as abortion is something that rightfully and exclusively should belong to the people and its elected representatives. Roe has not only denied the right of the unborn to live, but also for the people of the United States to define what life is.

The Roe v. Wade decision serves to betray the most vulnerable and silent of minorities—a minority incapable of mounting any defense. Over 48 million lives have been thrown away due to inconvenience. This is justified by a viable definition grounded in the influence of science and technology over the past 35 years. Ultrasounds became more detailed, and more discoveries were made making the viability of a fetus in early development hard to deny. Within our lifetime—or even sooner than we think—science will confirm undeniably the sad reality of what we have witnessed these past 35 years.