BY EMILY GILL

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Dec. 1st in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to decide whether Mississippi’s law making most abortions illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy constitutes an undue burden on the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. Although Roe may not be completely overturned, growing restrictions have made this legal right increasingly difficult to exercise.

Human rights are increasingly under challenge around the globe today in two ways. The first concerns legally recognized rights that are difficult to exercise or under threat altogether. The second pertains to the increasing ascendency of authoritarianism.

Restrictions on abortion are being loosened in some other nations, but this does not necessarily mean that abortion care is easier to obtain. In September, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional. This does not automatically decriminalize abortion across that country. Women arrested for having an abortion can sue to have the charges dropped, and it sets a binding precedent for future cases. Mexico’s conservative ethos has long led to doctors and nurses yelling at women who have had illegal abortions and reporting them to the police. Public opinion there has been trending toward more liberal views, however.

Although Spain liberalized its abortion laws in 2010, the change there was ahead of much of Spanish society. Women may obtain abortions without restriction during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. But across the nation, large numbers of doctors refuse to perform them, citing their oath to do no harm and their conscientious beliefs. In five of Spain’s autonomous regions (states), no public hospital offers abortions, and women must travel across state lines to private clinics.

Social opposition to abortion and to other liberal values such as human rights, diversity, and religious liberty has always been present. An unfortunate addition to the mix, however, is what New York Times columnist David Brooks in September called “religiously cloaked authoritarians,” whose programs are often linked to particular versions of national identity. He cites both China and Russia as exemplars of a return to older customs and values, as well as groups in both European countries and in the U.S., which use Christian symbols, often linked to whiteness, as cultural identity-markers of a “secularized ‘Christianism’.” Some of the American Christian right now believes that the U.S. has failed as a role model for exceptionalism, and they seek new allies in the rising autocracies of the former Soviet bloc that are upholding traditional “family” values.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November showed not only that 60 percent of Americans thought that Roe should be upheld, but also that 75 percent said that abortion decisions should be between people and their doctors. Only 20 percent thought that the government should regulate them. Max Fisher pointed out in the September New York Times, however, that in the U.S. and also elsewhere, major institutions may increasingly empower minority rule. In the U.S., the Senate and the electoral college have historically bolstered the political advantage of less-populated, rural states. More recently, conservative voters tend to cluster in states that wield a disproportionate voice. Supreme Court justices are thus more likely to be appointed by a president losing the popular vote and confirmed by a minority-elected Senate. In both the U.S. and Poland, the high courts have rolled back abortion rights favored by national majorities.

Those around the world who support individual human rights must beware of cultural movements, religious or otherwise, that claim legitimacy for their programs because these ostensibly represent a unique identity that is inseparable from that of the nation. If they are imposed from above, minority rule will truly have arrived.