The US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade illustrated the accelerating erosion of democracy at different levels of government. Roe v. Wade, a ruling that granted women the right to abortion, was deemed by the Supreme Court to be wrong and not explicitly protected, and they claimed that it went beyond the Constitution. The decision was given to the states as to whether to keep or ban abortion within their borders. The rights of women were directly affected, and the process by which this occurred and the administration’s undoing of these liberties highlights the critical importance of protecting women’s rights at both the state and federal levels and the further erosion of American democracy.
The beginning of this controversy was in Mississippi back in 2018, coming from a law that banned all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy called the Gestational Act. Not long after, the Jackson Women’s Health organization sued less than an hour after the bill passed. The law was then put on hold by District Judge Carlton Reeves, who ruled that the Gestational Act was unconstitutional. Mississippi continued to appeal to the US Court of Appeals, but the court ruled in favor of the clinic. Mississippi would appeal again to the Supreme Court with plans of overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mississippi argued that the fetus can sense pain and respond to stimuli up to 10 to 12 weeks, so the gestational age and viability needed to be changed. After much deliberation, the Gestational Act was deemed not unconstitutional; furthermore, the Constitution did not guarantee a right to an abortion. There were protests in many major cities, and the capital became the epicenter of them. Many advocates for pro-choice and women’s rights, but it was all in vain. Many states immediately passed legislation that limited or banned abortion entirely within their borders.
Democracy in America has granted the Supreme Court significant power. Justices serve for years and are appointed by the president. The fact is, the Constitution depends heavily on who’s in the court to enforce its decrees and morals. Horizontal accountability is important to any government, and in the United States, some branches and parts of the government hold greater power at certain times. The States being granted greater power raise questions about whether certain states within our country are experiencing democratic erosion faster or slower than others. How powerful can a state become compared to the federal government? This could be certain actions of a stealth authoritarian tactic, where it could further erode the US democracy. Using the power of the courts, if misused, can disrupt horizontal and vertical accountability.
As citizens, it is very difficult to change court decisions without substantial resources to support a claim. Ozan Varol made some points on this when discussing horizontal accountability within democracies. Legal mechanisms, such as electoral regulations and judicial review, are very relevant to the subject of abortion. These mechanisms are hard to catch when you are experiencing them; only in time do some people recognize and speak out against the eroding democracy. Abortion is only the beginning of such a process and has set a dangerous precedent. Public confidence in our government’s ability to protect our rights becomes a greater issue when there is no trust in the government. The right to an abortion is important and was deemed a fundamental right for American women, but it is dependent on where one is geographically.
Furthermore, major pieces of legislation, such as the 13th Amendment, the many civil rights acts, and Roe v. Wade, have at some point greatly influenced Americans’ freedom. Where is the morality in law? It sparks a deep conversation about how women are viewed in America. The rights of a man have not been taken away, only provided more, while women are experiencing the opposite. This is a sign of democratic erosion, according to Dahl’s definition of a polyarchy: a nation should have inclusion and the ability to contest. Citizens are allowed to protest and share their issues, but certain administrations interpret such outcries as unlawful, which is another sign of deep-rooted democratic erosion. The removal of federal state acceptance of abortion is just the first example of many ways in which the government is slowly taking away our civil liberties. How does federalism affect rights such as abortion or other rights that affect a large number of people? Different states have different rights for women. Moreover, it represents deep political polarization within American political parties, which can undermine public trust and democratic legitimacy, especially as debates over abortion become more divisive and emotionally charged.
However, there is still widespread civic engagement on many important topics, and abortion is still among them. There are protests and many ways to express political opinions, and the age of technology provides outlets for many to share their issues with the government’s failures. Hopefully, through civic participation, we can slowly overturn such policies that undermine our rights as Americans.
This post about how federalism system makes democratic erosion faster was interesting. It is because people usually think the United States as the epitome of democracy. The system of United States was object of envy, democratic system that something flawless that would never collapse forever. It is interesting that some parts of the government hold greater power at some times. Also, that is interesting the United States’ law and rights that applicable are very depends on the State. It is because the United States is using the system of federalism, respecting the other states’ thought and opinion. But ironically, this also allows people to give rights differently, like in the case of abortion. Political polarization may make democratic erosion accelerated by federalism within overturning in many political parts, such as court’s, policy, etc. Therefore the this post was interesting to me to think about democratic erosion.
This article convincingly suggests through the issue of abortion that federalism can lead to the weakening of democracy in the United States. In particular, the situation in which different standards are applied from state to state as the Roe v. Wade ruling is overturned shows that there may be an imbalance in judgment on whether women’s right to abortion is guaranteed within the same country. In this context, it is important to understand the problem consciousness of the article describing the concerns and limitations of federalism in which central and local governments run independent administrative operations in the United States, and that the guarantee of equality and rights, the core values of democracy, can be shaken. In particular, as seen in various media and reality, some women are pregnant with children through unwanted sexual intercourse and are forced to erase them due to economic, physical, and social difficulties, so the debate over the right to abortion you wrote became interested in this regard.
However, on the one hand, I think there is a limit to looking at the issue of abortion only from the perspective of “women’s rights.” This is because, unlike other rights issues, abortion is a special issue directly connected to another life, not only the mother but also the fetus. It has long been a question of whether the fetus is viewed simply as a part of the mother’s body or as an independent life after a certain point in time. For example, in 2018, Mississippi, as you mentioned, argued that the fetus could feel pain and respond to stimuli even between 10 and 12 weeks of pregnancy, and argued that the timing of pregnancy and viability should be redefined. It becomes difficult to define abortion as an unconditional right if a certain level of human rights or life rights can be recognized even for a fetus.
From this point of view, this issue is an area where social and ethical consensus has not yet been fully reached, so there are aspects that various standards inevitably exist depending on the values and judgments of each region. Some states may value women’s right to self-determination more, and others may value the right to life of the fetus more. This difference can be seen as a result of the conflict of different moral standards rather than just deprivation of rights. For example, just as different agencies can rule differently on whether to impose moral responsibility on people passing by someone in trouble, such as the Good Samaritan law, we should compromise our opinions and make a decision through a common consensus rather than judging on a unified basis. In other words, I think we should discuss the right of abortion together with the right of the fetus.
I agree with the article’s argument that this court decision weakens democratic principles. This cannot be viewed as merely an issue of abortion; it also involves the broader problem of constitutional rights and democratic protection. In a federal system, states are not allowed to infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but this decision, by overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue of abortion rights to the states, undermines that core structure. Because of this, as basic rights are no longer equally protected across the country, it could lead to a chain reaction of distortion in democratic structures. Of course, this kind of democratic erosion has happened many times before. One of the most controversial ones is Shelby County v. Holder (2013). This case was one in which voting rights and the balance of power between the federal government and the states came into conflict. It started when Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 5 and 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), arguing that they were outdated and violated state sovereignty. Section 5 of the Act required certain states and counties to obtain federal preclearance before making changes to election-related laws, a system that had been introduced to prevent racially discriminatory voter suppression in places with a history of such practices. However, because this requirement placed heavier federal oversight on some states than others, Shelby County argued that the law was outdated and no longer justified under present conditions. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, and the outcome included the invalidation of Section 4(b), which was the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance. As a result, Section 5 became effectively unenforceable, and voting rights were more vulnerable to restrictive state-level election laws. This case can be said to be similar to the case mentioned in the article. It shows how a federal system can contribute to the lack of protection of basic rights and weaken democracy.