The Thirteenth Amendment: A New Take on Abortion Rights

Protestors gather outside of the Supreme Court during the Dobbs v. Jackson hearing. Photo by Victoria Pickering.

America finally gets it. Following the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, confidence in the nation’s highest court has reached a historic low, with a reported 75% of U.S. adults doubting its integrity to some degree. Citizens are now beginning to see the Supreme Court for what it truly is: a political instrument equally as partisan as the other branches. Unsurprisingly, the Court now faces extensive scrutiny following its decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, which established that the U.S. Constitution does not protect abortion rights. Now, more than ever, liberal justices are burdened by the task of adapting their legal doctrines and returning to their originalist roots to protect not just abortion rights—but the evergrowing list of protections once held inalienable.

That is where the Thirteenth Amendment comes in. Albeit an unlikely candidate, the constitutional abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude could offer a direct legal route for returning bodily autonomy to individuals. Northwestern University professor Andrew Koppelman explains that anti-abortion laws violate the amendment's protection of personal liberty and equality by selectively subjecting individuals to serve fetuses against their will—thus, involuntary servitude. 

To better understand this legal avenue, consider the historical context for constructing the Thirteenth Amendment. During antebellum slavery, the subordination of Black women extended beyond manual labor to sexual exploitation and forced reproduction. Harriet Jacob's "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" and Reverend Ishael Massie's accounts recall the horrifying sexual abuse and dehumanizing tactics meant to reinforce power dynamics as commonplace. The Thirteenth Amendment’s assertion that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States,” did not only seek to end physical labor mandated by slavery but also the various branches of abuse that stemmed from it—including reproductive servitude. In other words, when the government forces individuals to serve a fetus, they are bound to a form of involuntary servitude “by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit.” By that logic, recent Court rulings grossly misinterpret the Constitution's provisions that protect bodily autonomy and individual liberty. 

While not immediately comparable to the egregious abuses cast on enslaved women, modern-day pregnancies entail restless nights, loss of appetite, excruciating pain, bloatedness, mood swings, aches, depression, and potentially further-reaching consequences like gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. In other words, Dobbs v. Jackson empowers the government to renounce the bodily autonomy of a new class of involuntary individuals while compelling them to undergo various degrees of physical and emotional suffering. Of course, for some, pregnancy is a beautiful, exciting part of life. However, as Koppelman puts it: “can rape be defended on the grounds that sex is an exhilarating, awe-inspiring, joyous experience?” No. Autonomy matters. 

Here’s the kicker: centuries later, this new breach of self-preservation continues to disproportionately oppress Black women. Consider the healthcare industry, where implicit bias, structural racism, and inequitable access to medical aid all contribute to a new form of racial subjugation. Disparaging statistics demonstrate that Black women, regardless of socioeconomic status, experience a three times higher likelihood of death from pregnancy complications than their white counterparts. In states like Mississippi, Black women account for 80% of pregnancy-related cardiac arrests. 

That is not to mention the short and long-term economic ramifications of raising a child in a country that lacks robust financial assistance, childcare support, and paid maternity leave. Studies show that after a Black woman was unable to access a safe abortion, they experienced lower credit scores; increased household poverty; and an 81% rise in bankruptcy, evictions, and court judgment records than those who were. Despite gradual social reformation, it seems the government never fails to find new mechanisms for ushering people of color into generational cycles of suppressed educational and financial mobility. Denying reproductive justice is only the latest attack in a long history of abuses. 

The Thirteenth Amendment is by no means the holy grail to all our problems. It may be full of institutional loopholes and philosophical limitations, but it does unveil the Court’s legacy of Black erasure from legal matters. Until individuals fully understand the intrinsic ties between past and present, today's conservative justices’ strategic dismissal of racial minorities' relevance in the abortion debate and beyond will continue chipping away at rights once considered guaranteed. In the end, abortion rights are civil rights. As governmental efforts attempt to erase integral aspects of American history and existing precedent, it is of the utmost importance that liberals consider the right to abortion through a holistic lens. One that views modern-day reproductive negligence toward Black women as a byproduct of bodily enslavement dating back to our country’s earliest roots. 

For that, the Thirteenth Amendment is the perfect start.

Monica Vazquez is a first-year at Columbia College, hoping to major in Financial Economics and Political Science. Her current interests include foreign policy, international labor, and prison reform.