Law professor discusses how the U.S. lost the consitutional right to abortion

Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. law professor at the University of California, Davis discussed how the U.S. lost the constitutional right to an abortion and its future implications. // Photo courtesy of Nana Phoebe Bjornestad.

The annual Critical Spiritualities lecture took place on Sept. 28, and was hosted by The Hofstra Department of Religion and the Cultural Center, which invited Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. law professor at the University of California, Davis, to discuss how the anti-abortion movement gained power to influence the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade and the future implications.

Ziegler discussed the anti-abortion movement in the 1960s.

“The earlier abortion movement began with its roots in the Catholic church,” Ziegler said.

Bringing the religious component to the issue, Ziegler stressed that the movement grew in the 1980s as it became part of the growing religious wing of the Republican party.

“In part, that was a marriage of convenience,” Ziegler said. “There were not a lot of other political options on the table.”

Then there was the issue of American culture changing with the early LGBTQ+ movement and no-fault divorce. Ziegler specified that the anti-abortion movement and religious right wing movement could not constitutionally do much about these issues, but Roe v. Wade was different. Accordingly, this began the fight to make fetal rights a constitutional right.

“The answer they came up with was the point of controlling the Supreme Court,” Ziegler said.

However, it soon became clear that fetal rights becoming a constitutional right was not viable, so the movement had to settle on making abortion unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there were setbacks in the 1990s. Ziegler gave a few examples, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The public was still unprepared for the end of Roe v. Wade – leading part of the movement to believe that more work had to be done to sway public opinion.

“It was a shock to the pro-life movement when the court refused to overrule Roe and preserve what it called the essential holding of Roe, namely that there is a right to choose abortion before viability,” Ziegler said.

In regards to the Supreme Court, Ziegler stated that Justice Clarence Thomas was seen as a figure who did not care for public backlash.

“The best proxy for how the public would act when the time came to overrule was Clarence Thomas [who] welcomed confrontation,” Ziegler said.

With all of these factors, including the influence of super PACs, the relationship with the GOP and the packing of the court with justices that would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ziegler concluded that these all led to the overthrow of overturning Roe v. Wade when the court took on the case of the four week abortion law from Mississippi.

“It was not a surprise to me that the court ruled,” Ziegler said. “It was a surprise to me that the court overruled Roe v. Wade in the way it did.”

Reflecting on Ziegler’s presentation, one Hofstra student appreciated the historical and personal rhetoric.

“I have never heard this perspective from a lawyer. She did use emotion, but it is also such a logical viewpoint,” said Sophia Marciana, a freshman English major. “It was cool to hear that.”            

After discussing the historical background, Ziegler asked attendees to consider what happens now since this constitutional right is gone. She proposed the idea that other constitutional rights will be stripped, such as the Fourteenth Amendment that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.

“Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh have tried to reassure the public that Roe was essentially the end of the road,” Ziegler said.

Ziegler’s lecture not only impacted students but faculty members as well.

“I really value a kind of historical context that she put it in. That understanding really sheds light on the current court,” said Rosebud S. Elijah, the co-director of elementary education and an associate professor of teaching, learning and technology programs department at Hofstra. “I value that. I thought that was very helpful for me.”

Although Ziegler gave examples of officials invading peoples’ privacy to gain data about when someone could be pregnant, she did express optimism for the future using Kansas’s rejection of an anti-abortion amendment.

“I think what comes next, in a way, is going to be a stress test for democracy,” Ziegler said.

After hearing Ziegler speak about these issues within the country, a Hofstra student shared her advice to other students.

“I think its important to go out to these kind of things,” said Brooklyn Peterson, a freshman psychology major. “To learn about it, even if you have a strong opinion, it doesn’t even matter, just being educated on it is important.”