The draft version of a decision on the right to abortion, credited (if that’s the proper term) to Justice Samuel Alito, is based on the observation that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. As Jill Lepore wrote in The New Yorker, “If a right isn’t mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, Alito argues, following a mode of reasoning known as the history test, then it can only become a right if it can be shown to be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
There is, of course, the Ninth Amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means, or seems to mean, that any rights that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution are still rights. The Internet is filled with arguments that this amendment covers the right to an abortion. The counter argument is that at the time of writing the Constitution “the people” didn’t include women. At that time, the only “people” were propertied white males. Anything a woman said was off the record.
This might require considerable research into the nation’s history, and potentially into British history. Justice Alito expresses the opinion that the right to an abortion began with Roe v Wade which was decided in 1973, too recently to have claim to being deeply rooted.
There is some history of use of abortifacients being used at least at the time of the founding of the United States.
Consider Benjamin Franklin’s book, “The Young Man’s Best Companion,” a volume that covered basic arithmetic, writing and a great deal more. It even went beyond the title and had valuable advice for women – with a section that began, “Now I am upon Female Infirmities, it will not be unreasonable to touch upon a common Complaint among unmarried women, namely The Suppression of the Courses. This not only disparage their Complexions, but fills them besides with sundry Disorders.”
This is directed at “unmarried women” and later is described as a “misfortune.” This is a clue to the audience that Franklin had in mind. The treatment includes “drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, and as much again at Night when you go to Bed.” The problem is not unfamiliarity with abortifacients as the excessive use of euphemisms.
Kate Cohen in the Washington Post wrote an essay “Forget ‘abortion.’ Bring back ‘Relief for Ladies.’”
Ms. Cohen writes: “… there were ads for ‘Relief for Ladies’ suffering from ‘obstructed menses.’ ‘Female renovating pills’ treated ‘all cases where nature has stopped from any cause.’ In one example, Dr. Pierce’s Favorite Prescription alleviated ‘all the troubles and ailments that make woman’s life a burden to her. She’s relieved, cured, and restored.’”
The American Medical Association’s volume, “Nostrums and Quackery,” devotes a chapter to “female weakness cures.” For example Bertha C. Day M.D. advertised “Suffering Women: Confide in me, I will help you FREE.”
Dr. Day didn’t have a monopoly – Drs. Luella McKinley Derbyshire and Julia D. Godfrey made essentially the same offer. None of them offered a free treatment regardless of the ad.
Most of these products are as worthless as the diagnosis of “female weakness.” A more candid ad was run by the makers of Mitchella Compound, a combination of worthless botanicals, but advertised “To Women Who Dread Motherhood.”
The AMA reported on Chichester’s Diamond Brand Pills, noting, “While in these advertisements nothing is said regarding the therapeutic uses of the preparation, the public, to a large extent, knows it and buys it as an abortifacient.” Chichester’s pill started as Chichester’s Pennyroyal Pills, but when a law was passed requiring truthful lists of ingredients, it became Diamond Brand Pills.
NYhistory.org mentions Dr. Vandenburgh’s Female Renovating Pills, “an effectual remedy in all cases where the operations of nature are impeded, or languidly performed.” Dr. Martel’s French Female Pills asked, “What ailment can so worry a suffering woman more than to have her menstruations painful, irregular or suppressed?”
The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion because it was written by men, who didn’t understand what women were talking about. Okay, Benjamin Franklin did, but he wasn’t about to mess with his book sales.
Sam Uretsky is a writer and pharmacist living in Louisville, Ky. Email sdu01@outlook.com.
From The Progressive Populist, July 1-15, 2022
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us