Abortion is health care in the broad sense of the term, and certainly in the instances described above. The World Health Organization defines health “as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being,” and abortion promotes all of these. The underlying message, however, isn’t just that abortion promotes health, but that health care is politically neutral, and that it’s grounded in medical expertise and objective professional judgment.
But in fact, many feminists working towards abortion rights in the 1960s and ’70s would have viewed this framing with suspicion—if not vehement disagreement. The movement to reform criminal abortion laws coincided with increased skepticism toward the medical profession by the Patients’ Rights and Women’s Health movements, which challenged what they saw as paternalistic, patriarchal, and profit-driven physicians. Although some activists believed that organized medicine could be reformed through government regulation and patient education, others thought medicine itself was a lost cause because of the hierarchy that placed “expert” doctors above patients.
The Women’s Health Movement was just one part of the broader second-wave feminist movement that began in the 1960s. These feminists rejected traditional gender roles, demanded equality in the workplace, and fought to extend control over reproduction made possible by recent technological advances such as “the Pill.” This included fighting to legalize abortion.
Many feminists rejected the idea that the medical profession should have any say in abortion. The Redstockings, a radical feminist group in New York, interrupted a 1969 hearing about proposed reforms to the state’s criminal abortion law, at which 14 men (mostly doctors and lawyers) and just one woman (a nun) were scheduled to speak. Members of the Redstockings shouted, “Alright, now let’s hear from some real experts—the women.”
That same year, women rather than doctors challenged a criminal abortion statute’s constitutionality for the first time in the case Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz. Drawing on the idea that a woman’s lived experience was expertise, the lawyers in Abramowicz called women to share their abortion stories as witnesses at trial as an alternative to medical “expert” testimony.
Professional medical groups also supported abortion law reform, but their approach departed dramatically from that of feminists. Although some physicians believed abortion was a woman’s right, many simply wanted to shield their professional domain from government interference. Some doctors wanted to perform abortions that they deemed necessary but feared that legalizing abortion would give their female patients too much power. At a medical conference in 1970, Alan Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood president and namesake of the Guttmacher Institute, worried that abortion reform would force doctors to “rubber stamp” women’s decisions. Another physician expressed concern about doctors losing their respected role in society because “[l]egal abortion makes the patient truly the physician: she makes the diagnosis and establishes the therapy.”
A 1970 American Medical Association resolution urged lawmakers to allow abortions for economic and social reasons, but only if the final decision was made by three physicians “according to their sound clinical judgment.” The resolution emphasized that abortion should not be provided on “mere acquiescence to the patient’s demand” — a clear rebuttal to feminists’ call for “abortion on demand and without apology.”
