Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
C O M M E N T A R Y Open Access
Life without Roe v Wade
Norman A. Ginsberg
1,2*
and Lee P. Shulman
1
Roe v Wade (RVW) was a landmark legal decision issued
on January 22, 1973. With this decision, the US Supreme
Court stuck down a Texas statute banning abortion.
Prior to this decision, abortion had been illegal through
out most of the country since the late nineteenth
century. This decision set forward a legal precedent
affecting 30 subsequent Supreme Court cases regarding
abortion. However, the Supreme Court is now predom-
inately conservative and is potentially poised to reverse
this decision. NARAL, a pro-choice American
organization, estimates that if RVW is overturned that
abortion will become illegal in 17 states [1].
RVW was announced 47 years ago, meaning that no
current woman of reproductive age (15–44) has any per-
sonal knowledge of how things were before the decision
was pronounced. The average age of physicians in the US
today is 51; therefore, most physicians also do not have
any personal knowledge of the clinical issues before RVW.
The purpose of this article is to reacquaint women
and physicians as what to expect if or when abortion be-
comes illegal, as the saying goes “… those that forget his-
tory are doomed to repeat it.”This is not written to
favor one moral philosophy over another and is not
meant to be a political tome. Rather, it is penned to pro-
vide information and experiences that may be needed in
the future.
I remember vividly my medical student rotation at
Cook County Hospital before RVW. Within the hospital
there was a 40-bed ward called ward 41, usually filled to
capacity with women that had suffered complications of
illegal abortions. Those who obtained illegal abortions
had them performed under a great veil of secrecy. They
were often blindfolded and whisked off to some un-
known place. Practitioners of this method did what ever
they could to avoid police detection. The poor and those
from minority groups who couldn’t access abortion
safely turned to a variety of methods, including: self-
medication with toxic chemicals such as turpentine,
bleach, detergent solutions quinine, and strong teas.
Other women used a vaginal approach with potassium
permanganate tablets and herbal preparations. Foreign
bodies were commonly placed into the uterus through
the cervix and commonly included sticks dipped in oil,
wire, knitting needles, coat hangers, ball point pens and
air blown in by either a syringe or turkey baster. The use
of air could lead to air embolism and death. In addition,
women would frequently resort to enemas and vaginal
or abdominal trauma.
A section near the emergency room was set aside for
triaging these women. Chemical burns and perforations
of the vagina, bladder, uterus and rectum were fre-
quently detected. Many of these women came in with
overwhelming infections, septic shock or heavy bleeding.
The role of triage was to determine which women
needed immediate surgery or those who required med-
ical interventions. Death in the ward, which was just a
series of beds separated by a curtain, was a common oc-
currence at a rate of more than one per month. It should
be noted that today we have superior and stronger anti-
biotics than in the 1970s; however, the decades of use of
these antibiotics have led to the development of resistant
strains that have reduced the effectiveness of these and
subsequent therapeutics.
This recounting portrays what occurred, in most ways,
across the nation. Women then, like today, had similar
reasons for ending their pregnancies such as having a
baby would drastically interfere with their education,
work, care for other dependents or they just couldn’t af-
ford a baby, in addition to accused rape and incest.
Many of them would plan to have a child when the cir-
cumstances were right; unfortunately, a great number of
those lost the ability to become pregnant again. When
abortion became legal that ward disappeared and with it
the enormous number of medical and surgical
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
* Correspondence: cvsguy1@aol.com
1
Prentice Hospital Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 250
E Superior St, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
2
Highland Park, USA
Contraception an
d
R
eproductive Medicin
e
Ginsberg and Shulman Contraception and Reproductive Medicine (2021) 6:5
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-021-00149-6
complications, as well the emotional trauma associated
with illegal abortion and its complications [2,3].
Abortion is one of the oldest events in recorded his-
tory; the procedure can be traced back as far as 2700
BCE. Abortion was first practiced in China, and then in
ancient Egypt. Artistic renderings of the process can be
found on a series of friezes as a bas-relief at Angkor Wat
in Cambodia [4].. Without question, abortion is a funda-
mental part of human history that is not a new proced-
ure and is not likely to “go away”by making it illegal.
The CDC estimates that 14% of all pregnancies are un-
wanted [5]. Today the incidence of securing an abortion
in countries that restrict abortion and those with more
liberal access are surprisingly equivalent [6–9]. That fact
highlights the futility of make abortion illegal since it
still continues unabatedly. Successful use of contracep-
tion could result in 4.5 million fewer abortions world-
wide [9]. Unfortunately, no method is 100% effective in
preventing pregnancy, though some methods (e.g.,
LARC methods) are more effective than others (e.g., oral
contraceptives). Indeed, all methods carry some risk for
failure, including permanent sterilization procedures
(e.g., tubal ligation, vasectomy). For those that wish to
overturn RVW, greater effort needs to be exercised in
making contraception widely available.
United States data suggest that legal abortion has no
more risk than other minor surgical procedures. These
data clearly support the safety of legal abortion in com-
parison to the risks associated with pregnancy. Indeed,
pregnancy is associated with a 14-times greater maternal
mortality rate in comparison to abortion. Social stigma
often prevents women from seeking timely help after an il-
legal abortion, which in turn may lead to severe disability
or death [10]. Worldwide, an estimate of 68,000 women
(eight/hour) die as a result of an illegal abortion. This
translates to a case-fatality rate of 367/100,000, which in
turn is hundreds of times greater than legal abortions. The
World health Organization reported that globally the case
fatality rate is 350 times that of legal abortions [7,8,11]. It
can be expected that the maternal death rate will increase
in the absence of legal abortions [6].
If the Supreme Court were to reverse RVW, there
could be serious consequences for those who choose
abortion to deal with their unwanted pregnancy. Re-
cently, Georgia passed House Bill 481, which con-
ferred “natural person”to an embryo with a heartbeat
at 6 weeks of gestation. A person would then be com-
mitting murder by causing the death of another hu-
man being (natural person). In that scenario people
that had anything to do with the termination, includ-
ing the mother, doctor, nurse or pharmacist, could be
caught up in the legal proceeding and potentially be
charged as accessories to murder. At this point it is
still unclear if this will survive a legal challenge or if
a prosecutor would actually try a case of murder
under these circumstances.
Many women unable to get an abortion will bring
their pregnancy to term. Numerous women have told
me that pregnancy was the best time of their life. Will it
be possible for women, in this situation, to be able to
enjoy their pregnancy? Will the moving and kicking
fetus be a delight or be a harbinger of what they will
lose? The nine months of pregnancy will undeniably cre-
ate some bonding of the mother to the fetus. Labor will
approach, a difficult, long and arduous process. After the
delivery they will have the baby for a few days until the
adoption can be arranged. Relinquishing the baby will be
an emotionally wrenching experience. There will be
mixed emotions along with feelings of failure and loss in
addition to some relief that the ordeal had ended. Every
year, they will remember the child they gave up, wonder-
ing about what they are missing and if they made the
right choice. And they will never forget.
The next consideration is for neonates that are born
with congenital malformations. In a study performed in
Sweden it was reported that congenital anomalies oc-
curred in 7.6% of newborns. Approximately 46% of the
detected anomalies were minor but 55% were classified
as severe. One consequence of banning abortion will be
the increase in severely handicapped children. Caring for
a child with physical or emotional disabilities is enor-
mously expensive from both a financial and emotional
consideration. Where will this money come from? As of
now the financial burden mostly falls on the parents
[12]. Schecter KB et al. reported a study conducted over
13 years where they examined 53,000 pregnancies.
Anomalies were graded into 4 groups: in group 1 there
was no impact on quality of life, in group 2 little impact
on quality of life, group 3 this category was serious
impacting on quality of life, even with optimal medical
therapy and group 4 was not compatible with life. For
the mildest abnormality the abortion rate was 0.9% and
for group 3 it rose to 72.5%. Maternal age directly corre-
lates with management of group 3. The older the
mother, the more likely she will end the pregnancy. Ser-
ious congenital anomalies may disproportionately affect
children with the youngest mothers, since they were the
most likely to continue the pregnancy [8]. Last year in
the United States, 3,788,235 children were born. Of
those born approximately 6% (227,294) will have an
anomaly. It can be expect that at least 50% of those
would be severe (113,647) in the group 3 [13].
For those who do not avail themselves with abortion,
there is apprehension that the rate of child maltreatment
is likely to increase when families are faced with an un-
intended pregnancy. Guterman [5], reported a study
looking at the prospective of both parents faced with an
unplanned pregnancy. Drawing upon data, from the
Ginsberg and Shulman Contraception and Reproductive Medicine (2021) 6:5 Page 2 of 4
Fragile Families and Child Well Being Study, a survey
was taken after birth regarding whether the couple had
considered abortion. Whether the mother or father
viewed it as an unintended pregnancy, the relationship
with maltreatment behavior was largely the same for
both parents. The mothers expressed the maltreatment
in the form of psychological aggression and neglect. The
fathers expressed maltreatment more in the form of
physical aggression [14].
How will low-income families deal with the additional
burden of another child in the family when they are
already living from paycheck to paycheck? Two years
ago, about 75% of US workers said they were living from
payday to payday, a number that has grown to 78% in
2019 and has likely increased even more with the world-
wide adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. The study conducted by Harris Poll, surveyed
nearly 2400 hiring and human resource-managers and
3500 adult employees who worked full-time in June and
May to derive these figures.
What will become of the unwanted children? Will we
again see an increase in orphanages and foster care?
Short of wars and natural disasters, poverty along with
drugs and alcohol are leading causes for abandonment.
Abandoned child syndrome is a proposed behavioral or
psychological condition that results primarily from the
loss of one or more parents. Abandonment can be con-
sidered physical when the parents are out of the child’s
life or emotional when the parents withhold affection,
nurturing, or stimulation. At the present time there are
roughly 400,000 children in US foster care. I can re-
member growing up and seeing numerous orphanages’
when abortion was illegal. It will be heartbreaking see
more and more children abandoned because they were
unwanted. Additionally there were homes for unwed
mothers that had no other types of support. Might that
also come back?
Reflecting on the up side, there will be more children
available for adoption if abortion is unobtainable. Cou-
ples that have failed to conceive despite treatment with
state-of-the-art fertility treatments centers will be able to
adopt a child without needing to resort to go to China
or Russia. However, it is important to recognize that
there is still an overabundance of children waiting to be
adopted. These children spend an average of 3 years in
foster care before they are adopted. Accordingly, an in-
crease in the number of children available for adoption
may profoundly tax a system that strives to place chil-
dren with caring and supportive parents.
Undoubtedly, life for many would be more problem-
atic in the absence of RVW. These facts explain why so
many groups of women fought so hard to maintain
RVW. On the other side, we can expect there to be more
liveborn children. Many of these children will be a
blessing in the lives of their family. Some may go on to
be great scholars, lawyers and politicians in turn greatly
contributing to society. Some examples of orphaned
children are Steve Jobs, Ray Charles, Marilyn Monroe,
Eleanor Roosevelt, Babe Ruth and Herbert Hoover.
However, many of these children may be abandoned or
abused by parents that did not want them in the first
place. Adding to that the surgical and medical trauma
that is likely to accrue to an increasing number of
women.
During 2020 we were woefully unprepared for the viral
pandemic, in part by a lack of knowledge on how to best
manage it. It is hope that this small message of a time
long ago will help future generations to be better pre-
pared if RVW is reversed and we are forced to return to
that time of frequent illicit abortion.
Acknowledgements
None.
Authors’contributions
Norman A Ginsberg, MD Initialed the commentary and writing of the
manuscript. Lee P Shulman, MD writing and editing the manuscript. The
author (s) read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
This data was obtained from the literature referenced in the manuscript and
publically available.
Ethics approval
This commentary doesn’t involve any specific patients and come from the
literature.
Consent for publication
Not required.
Competing interests
There are none.
Received: 12 October 2020 Accepted: 21 January 2021
References
1. Nash E, Donovan MK. Ensuring access to abortion at the state level:
selected examples and lessons. Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2019;22(Jan):1–6.
2. Steinberg N. Back-alley tragedies loom again. Section 2 (Features). Chicago
Sun-Times; 2001. p. 44.
3. Weiland A. "Opinion. I Saw The Horrors Of The Pre-Roe Era. Let's Never Go
Back." BuzzFeed News. 2019;1–4.
4. Borgatta L. Labor induction termination of pregnancy. Global library of
women’s health; 2015. https://doi.org/10.3843/GLOWM.10444.
5. Martinez C, Abramor M, Jones J. Fertility and planning and reproductive
health of US women: data from the 2002 National Survey of family growth.
National center for health statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2005;23:9250.
6. Grimes DA, Benson J, Singh S, Romero M, Ganatra B, Okoonofua FE, Shah
IH. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic. Lancet. 2001;368(9550):
1908–19.
7. Ahman E, Shah IH. New estimates and trends regarding unsafe abortion
mortality. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;115(2011):121–6.
8. Shah I, Ahman E. Unsafe abortion in 2008; global and regional trends.
Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18(36):90–101.
9. Deschner A, Cohen S. Contraception use is the key to reducing abortion
worldwide. Guttmacher Policy Rev 2003;6(4):1–10.
Ginsberg and Shulman Contraception and Reproductive Medicine (2021) 6:5 Page 3 of 4
10. Cameron S. Recent advances in improving the effectiveness and reducing
the complications of abortion. F1000 Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.12688/
f1000research.15441.1.
11. Dept of Reproductive Health and Reseearch, WHO. Unsafe abortion: global
and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated
mortality in 2008, 6th edition. WHO; 2011. p. 1–56.
12. Schecter KB, Gray DL, Baty JD, Rothman SM. Decision-making for
termination of pregnancies with fetal anomalies: analysis of 53,000
pregnancies. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002;99(920):216–22.
13. Guterman K. Unintended pregnancy as a predictor of child maltreatment.
Child Abuse Negl. 2015;48:160–9.
14. Wennerholm UB, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Lundin K, Nilsson L, Wikland M,
Kållén B. Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICIS.
Human Reprod. 2000;15(4):944–8.
Publisher’sNote
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ginsberg and Shulman Contraception and Reproductive Medicine (2021) 6:5 Page 4 of 4
