Roe v. Wade: 45 Years Later

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 22: Covington Catholic High School Freshman Tommy Smith of Cincinnati, Ohio, center, screams at a pro-choice protesters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during the annual pro-life anti-abortion "March for Life" to protest the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the case Roe v. Wade on January 22, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 22: Covington Catholic High School Freshman Tommy Smith of Cincinnati, Ohio, center, screams at a pro-choice protesters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during the annual pro-life anti-abortion “March for Life” to protest the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the case Roe v. Wade on January 22, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

K. Rambo

Roe v. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 22, 1973, making abortion legal. Forty-five years later, it is still a hotly-contested topic.

Every year, there are marches, rallies and legislation attempting to increase, decrease or eliminate altogether, access to abortions.

President Trump became the first president to speak at the March for Life last week in Washington D.C., addressing the crowd and voicing his support. While women’s rights advocates claim that abortion is a right and medical necessity, a war wages on in governments, parishes and households across the country.

Some describe it as a war on women, others as a war on religious freedom.

Advocates say that eliminating or restricting access to abortion is dangerous, as people who wish to terminate pregnancies will be forced to pursue more dangerous methods.

Some who largely oppose abortion believe it should be allowed if early enough in pregnancy, or in cases of incest or rape. Some believe abortion should never be allowed and that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

The list of differing opinions are as complex as the topic is controversial.

Various student groups exist on campus that have opposing viewpoints. ISU Students for Life is an active pro-life group at Iowa State.

“As far as Roe v. Wade goes, it just made all abortions legal in the United States,” said Maggie Bermel, March for Life coordinator with ISU Students for Life. “[The decision] was just very against what we were founded on … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Bermel, a senior in entrepreneurship, compared abortion to historical acts of oppression in the United States.

“Through the years, we’ve had to learn, that includes everyone,” Bermel said. “I mean learning about slavery, and that was okay back then, and how that’s not okay.

“I think it’s taking our country longer than it should to figure out who’s included in who deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Bermel expanded on what she felt were accurate historical parallels.

“I think that a lot of times, superiors marginalize others. So we could even say like the blacks, women, and recently, like the gays,” Bermel said. “All of those translate into the unborn now, I think is a big issue we need to pursue.”

Bermel added that she believes the difference between the struggle of black people, gay people and women is that those groups are able to speak for themselves and that Students for Life are giving a “voice to the voiceless.”

Students for the Advancement of Gender Equity, or SAGE, is a student group that stands in support of Roe v. Wade and access to abortion.

“Most people [in SAGE] agree that Roe v. Wade was a good step in providing women access and the rights to controls of their own bodies, there is more to be done to ensure it, but it was definitely an important step,” said Emily Southard, senior in agriculture and society and treasurer of SAGE.

Southard noted that SAGE believes a constitutional amendment should be added to guarantee the right to access abortion.

“It would be great if there were more concrete laws that make abortion more accessible and don’t create unnecessary trauma,” Southard said.

Rep. Steve King, R-Ia, introduced H.R.490, or the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 on Jan. 12, 2017. On Feb. 2, 2017, the bill was sent to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, where it has been since.

“This bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion: (1) without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, (2) without informing the mother of the results, or (3) after determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat,” reads the description on Congress.gov.

The bill would create penalties of a fine, up to five years in prison, or both, for doctors who performed an abortion that would be considered prohibited with the passage of the bill.

The bill does allow an exception if the pregnant party would have their life endangered by giving birth, but specifically excludes psychological or emotional disorder, illness or condition.

The day the national March for Life happened, King tweeted his support for the march and his legislation.

Rep. Jody B. Hice, R-Ga, introduced H.R.586, or the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would outlaw all abortions and most forms of birth control, as well as in vitro fertilization just five days later.

SF 253, currently in the Iowa Legislature, would add an Iowa constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception or fertilization and outlaw all abortions.

Caitlin Yamada contributed reporting to this article.