Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing seems as if it was years ago, as if it were swept under the rug, when, in fact, it only happened in September. I remember the day after her passing was announced, my feed on Instagram was filled with posts mourning her death. I also saw posts that seemed, at the time, to be irrational amounts of fear for the future of our country and specifically, for the the future of legalized abortion.

Weeks passed, and soon enough, President Trump was already deciding who would fill R.B.G’s seat. This nominee was someone who, I would later learn, didn’t share the same ideologies as Ginsburg. That someone was Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett shared almost little-to-no information regarding her personal political standpoints during her Senate hearing, yet it was quite obvious where she stood. Some sources claim she appears to be more conservative than any Supreme Court candidate, besides Justice Clarence Thomas.

This is due to one of two things. Firstly, Barrett holds originalist ideologies close to her heart. A quick Google search concludes that originalism promotes interpreting the Constitution as it was written hundreds of years ago. Barrett specifically stated that she interpreted the Constitution “as a law,” and that the meaning of it doesn’t change over time; it stays the same as it had hundreds of years prior.

This is a hard point of view for me to accept.  Following the Constitution as it was written in 1787 is quite shocking, considering the Constitution did not include an incredibly broad demographic of people and dealt with different issues than we face today. 

When asked about how she would handle Roe vs. Wade, a Supreme Court case that legalized abortion for women, Barrett stated that she wouldn’t change the right for women to have an abortion, yet she’d change whether or not it’s legal to have a “late-term abortion,” along with restrictions she’d want to put on clinics. 

I worry that the changes she wishes to make will be quite detrimental to those who are in serious need of second or third trimester abortions (the real name, as “late-term abortions” is considered a political construct). While many pro-life supporters claim that women who undergo second and third trimester abortions are murderers, when one researches the facts, it becomes much more complicated.

Statistically speaking, second and third trimester abortions are usually out of a woman’s control because either the mother carrying the fetus is facing serious health issues, or the fetus has severe genetic anomalies that would prevent it from being able to live past birth. 

By making second and third trimester abortions illegal, many women and teens who urgently need them will not be able to have access to them under the protection of the law. That means in order to get them, they’d have to be performed illegally, which may lead to abortions being performed without proper safety measures. In addition, without second or third trimester abortions, the mortality rate in pregnant women and teens may rise, as they will most likely be unable to get proper care to prevent them from dying during the procedure or while giving birth.  

Teenage pregnancy is a real and scary thing, as many teenagers are physically unable to give birth, as it can lead to serious health consequences due to their bodies being underdeveloped (with respect to ability to naturally birth a child). Not only that, but pregnancy can take young women out of school, preventing them from getting the proper education they need. Most teens aren’t ready or prepared to have children, so being able to have an abortion allows them to continue living their lives without the consequences of caring for a child they weren’t ready to have.

With the predicted termination of Roe vs. Wade, it’s impossible to tell how many abortions will be available to women in future years, and it’s also impossible to tell how many women will die in the process.