The constitutional and legislative aspects of Abortion rights differ in countries such as the United States and Nigeria. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and Roe v. Wade (1973) are two significant U.S. Supreme Court cases that have ramifications. Roe established a mother’s fundamental right to privacy, which includes the right to an abortion during the first trimester. By overturning Roe and giving states back control over abortion, Dobbs made a distinction between the rights of abortion providers and mothers.
In Nigeria, the Criminal Code Act is being amended by the federal government in an attempt to decriminalise abortion. The Nigerian Constitution, which gives states residual legislative authority, is cited as supporting the claim that abortion issues belong in the purview of state legislatures. Critics point to constitutional limitations and the necessity of adhering to federal institutions in their critiques of the attempts by federal legislators in Nigeria and the United States to control abortion. The fundamental right to privacy and liberty of a pregnant woman and the non-fundamental right of providers to provide abortion services are not the same thing.
Nat’l & subnat’l admins in nations sometimes share legislative authority.
Thus, it is argued that in federations where states retain residual powers, federal Legislation that criminalise or decriminalise abortion frequently lack constitutional foundation. The landmark Roe v. Wade ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 established a woman’s constitutional right to stop a pregnancy in the first trimester, using the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy as justification. Abortion became a hot topic in political and cultural discussions as a result of this ruling, which sparked discussions about reproductive rights in society.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), on the other hand, reversed Roe, holding that abortion rights are not constitutionally guaranteed and giving individual states back control over abortion regulation. Legislative reactions varied, with some states enacting stringent prohibitions and others codifying safeguards. This resulted in access gaps that disproportionately affect rural and low-income women. The national and subnational administrations in federations sometimes share legislative authority. Health and safety laws are among the rights that the 10th Amendment of the United States reserves for the states that are not specifically granted to the federal government.
Inequities in health within nations may result from decentralised rules.
Similarly, in Nigeria, states are granted residual legislative rights by the Constitution, including the ability to enact legislation pertaining to abortion. Although this split guarantees decentralisation, it may lead to disparate legal environments and uneven access to services. Proponents of federal protections for abortions advocate for consistency to guarantee fair access across the country. For instance, the Guttmacher Institute found that in certain regions, post-Dobbs clinic availability has decreased by 60% due to stringent state regulations in the United States. Proponents contend that federal law might address Public Health issues, such as unsafe abortion practices, and prevent such inequities.
Regulation at the state level frequently leads to glaring disparities in access to abortion services. Disenfranchised groups are disproportionately affected by state laws in the United States, such as Texas, that require women to travel hundreds of miles for care. An estimated 45% of abortions worldwide are unsafe, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and this problem is made worse by limited availability. Inequities in health within federations may result from decentralised rules. Clinics in restrictive states transitioned or closed their services as a result of the Dobbs ruling, which created a great deal of disturbance. Following Dobbs, for instance, Mississippi’s sole abortion facility shut down.
Related Article: The Need for Abortion Law Reform in Nigeria
There are also financial and practical barriers for women seeking abortions, including lost earnings and travel expenses. In addition, providers face ethical quandaries and legal dangers while negotiating contradictory state legislation. Federations could implement structures that strike a balance between state autonomy and federal supervision in order to heal the division. For example, state-specific laws and federal minimum standards for reproductive healthcare could coexist. By including stakeholders, such as advocacy organisations and medical professionals, legislation could be made to uphold constitutional restrictions and reflect public health requirements.
Hotlinks
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women’s_Health_Organization
Roe v. Wade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade