Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

==== Opposition to ''Roe'' but support for abortion rights ====
Some supporters of abortion rights oppose ''Roe v. Wade'' on the grounds that it laid a foundation for abortion in [[civil rights]] rather than in [[human right]]s, which are broader and would require government entities to take active measures to ensure every woman has access to abortion.<ref name="Ross & Solinger 2017">{{cite book|title=Reproductive Justice: An Introduction| last1 = Ross |first1=Loretta|last2=Solinger|first2=Rickie |isbn=978-0-520-28820-1|location=Oakland, California|oclc=960969169|date = 2017 |publisher=University of California Press}}</ref>{{page needed|date=March 2024}} This particular position is indicated by the use of rhetoric concerning "[[Reproductive justice#Definition|reproductive justice]]", which replaces earlier rhetoric centered around "choice", such as the "pro-choice" label.<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = West R |date=2009|title=From Choice to Reproductive Justice: De Constitutionalizing Abortion Rights|journal=Yale Law Journal|volume=118|pages=1394–1432}}</ref> Reproductive justice proponents contend that factors permitting choice are unequal, thus perpetuating oppression and serving to divide women.<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = Gaard G |date=2010|title=Reproductive Technology, or Reproductive Justice? An Ecofeminist, Environmental Justice Perspective on the Rhetoric of Choice|journal=Ethics and the Environment|volume=15|issue=2|pages=103–129|doi=10.2979/ete.2010.15.2.103|s2cid=144393726}}</ref> Reproductive justice advocates instead want abortion to be considered an affirmative right that the government would be obligated to guarantee equal access to, even if the women seeking abortions are nonwhite, poor, or live outside major [[Metropolitan statistical area|metropolitan areas]].<ref>[https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=nulr_online Symposium on Anita Bernstein's The Common Law Inside the Female Body] by David S. Cohen, ''Northwestern University Law Review'', Volume 114, page 147 (page 8 of the pdf)</ref> With a broader interpretation of the right to an abortion, it would be possible to require all new [[obstetricians]] to be in favor of abortion rights, lest as professionals they employ [[Conscience clause in medicine in the United States|conscience clause]]s and refuse to perform abortions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/do-we-need-a-pro-choice-l_b_178456.html|title=Do We Need a Pro-Choice Litmus Test for Obstetricians?|last=Appel|first=Jacob M.|website=[[Huffington Post]]|date=24 April 2009|access-date=December 18, 2021}}</ref> In the 1989 decision of ''Webster v. Reproductive Health Services'', the Supreme Court ruled against an affirmative right to [[:wikt:nontherapeutic|nontherapeutic]] abortions and noted that states would not be required to pay for them.<ref name="Webster"/>

Some in academia have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and reason that because of this abortion bans violate the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]]: "When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Even if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant."<ref name="Koppelman" /> In 1993, a district court rejected an attempt to justify abortion rights apart from ''Roe'' and instead upon the basis that pregnancy and childrearing constituted [[involuntary servitude]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/828/1544/2352063/|title=Jane L. v. Bangerter, 828 F. Supp. 1544 (D. Utah 1993)|website=Justia Law}}</ref>