An Evaluation of the Jane Collective as Servant Leaders and Their Impact on Abortion Rights: Past, Present, and Future

This research evaluates the abortion debate in the United States (US) from the servant leadership perspective. The introduction of the paper gives a brief history of abortion in the US, noting that it was legal until the middle of the nineteenth century when laws outlawing it started to be put into practice. The topic of the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal nationwide in 1973. It builds on the work of The Jane Collective, a group of women who provided safe and authorized abortions to women in Chicago before Roe v. Wade, which is then discussed. The Jane Collective, according to the literature review, can be viewed as servant leaders since they put others' needs before their own and conducted themselves with kindness and humility.

The controversy over abortion in America today is then covered in the research. The study concludes a considerable gap between how the public views abortion and the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court, according to the research, is out of touch with what the American public believes about abortion rights now. The argument in the paper's conclusion is that servant leadership can offer a valuable framework for comprehending the abortion debate. This paper makes the case that servant leadership can help us find common ground and come to a more equitable conclusion to the abortion debate by allowing us to view it from the perspective of those most affected.

The abortion debate in the United States (U.S.) has caused controversy for over a century. There is a pro-life debate that life begins at conception, while the pro-choice movement restricts the idiom of life until birth. However, who should have a say in this matter? This, too, is up for debate. Limiting or removing a woman's ability to obtain safe and legal abortion services is the loss of abortion rights. This can be accomplished by altering the laws and regulations, such as waiting periods, obligatory counseling requirements, and limitations on insurance coverage, that constrict access to abortion or make it more challenging for women to get an abortion. From 1969 until 1973, while abortion was prohibited in the U.S., a group of women known as The Jane Collective offered safe abortions to women in Chicago; the Abortion Counseling Service of Women's Liberation was the group's original name before changing to the Jane Collective. Heather Booth, a Chicago-based Women's Liberation Union member, founded the organization. After a friend almost died from a back-alley abortion, Booth realized the need for a safe and affordable abortion service [10]. When women in Chicago sought abortions, she and a few other women started to provide counseling and referrals but soon learned that no safe options were available. To fill this gap, the group learned how to perform abortions using instruction manuals and medical texts. They also developed a network of doctors who would provide medical supervision and backup care if necessary. 

This study will analyze Servant Leadership and The Jane Collective to understand this disagreement that has divided the United States' past, present, and future. Abortion history in the U.S. is a complex and frequently divisive topic. Before the middle of the 1800s, abortion was legal in the U.S. [14].  However, as the medical profession became increasingly professionalized and strengthened its influence over reproductive healthcare, laws restricting abortion began to be passed. At the turn of the 20th century, abortion was illegal in every state except for those where the mother's life was in danger. The historic Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which held that a woman's right to an abortion was a part of her constitutionally protected right to privacy, legalized abortion on a national level in 1973. Roe v. Wade saw various attempts during this time to limit abortion on a state and federal level. These have included attempts to defund abortion services like Planned Parenthood and laws mandating parental consent, waiting periods, and required ultrasounds for minors seeking abortions. In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in another significant decision. This was a political setback for pro-abortion advocates and a legal victory for pro-lifers [6].

Losing access to abortion can hurt women's health and happiness [5]. Without access to safe and legal abortion, women would turn to risky and illegal procedures, which could result in fatal consequences. Losing the right to an abortion restricts a woman's control over her body and future pregnancies.

It is significant to highlight that access to abortion rights differs from nation to nation and even within regions of the same country. Women may have limited access to abortion services in some locations, but access may be generally available elsewhere. Proponents of reproductive rights contend that women should have the freedom to decide whether to bring a pregnancy to term, which makes the topic of abortion rights difficult. Opponents, however, say abortion is ethically wrong and should be strictly prohibited.

It can be hypothesized that this group acted as community leaders, and more specifically, they acted as Servant Leaders. This research will evaluate popular opinion on abortion by developing and understanding The Jane Collective and correlating their work to the foundation of Servant Leadership. This qualitative research will utilize secondary data collection. The research question is, “Can we classify The Jane Collective as Servant Leaders?” In qualitative research, secondary data can be used when the data point exists, and for this study, the data points are recent and tangible. Using secondary data allows access to information from various sources. It enables the examination of multiple perspectives, contexts, and periods, enhancing the depth and richness of the research findings.

Historical Evaluation 

The Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 created a constitutional right to abortion in the United States. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to overturn or severely restrict this decision, particularly from pro-life organizations and politicians who consider abortion immoral. Due to the makeup of the Supreme Court in recent years, there was a unique worry about the potential of Roe v. Wade being reversed. To fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump proposed Judge Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Because of questions regarding his stance on abortion rights, his confirmation was not without controversy. The Supreme Court currently has a firmly conservative majority with the latest arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. 

In the United States, abortion continues to be a contentious subject with strong political and ideological undertones. Those who identify as pro-choice believe that women should be free to choose an abortion. In contrast, those identifying as "pro-life" generally believe abortion is immoral and should be prohibited. Over time, the general public's viewpoint on abortion has changed, with a trend toward increasing support for abortion rights. In most circumstances, 61% of Americans believe abortion should be permitted, while 37% think it should be prohibited in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center (2023). Although there is still much controversy regarding the intricacies of abortion law, many Americans support limitations, including parental notification laws, waiting periods, and bans on late-term abortions.

It is important to note that public opinion on abortion can be nuanced and varied, with many Americans having moderate or conflicted views [1]. Additionally, several variables, such as religious convictions, political affinities, life experiences, and cultural norms, might impact one's opinions on abortion. An important ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 called Roe v. Wade established a woman's constitutional right to get abortion services. Since then, pro-lifers have sued to overturn the decision, and they made multiple unsuccessful attempts before the Supreme Court's eventual decision to do so in 2022. The Supreme Court no longer upholds a woman's constitutional right to get abortion services due to the conclusion [1]. This has gradually made abortion illegal throughout the nation, but on the proviso that states can continue to pass laws restricting or outright banning abortion without being constrained by the Constitution.

Women's health and well-being have suffered significantly due to the Roe v. Wade decision, especially in states where access to abortion is likely to be restricted. In these states, women would encounter obstacles to getting safe and legal abortions, leading them to seek unsafe and illegal treatments or to carry unintended pregnancies to term, such as through rape or incest, and it does not consider the mother's health [5].  The history of abortion in the United States has been characterized by heated political and social conflicts and continual attempts to balance women's rights to control their bodies and the competing interests of the medical establishment, religious organizations, and pro-life advocates.

Current Belief on Abortion Rights

Abortion is a worldwide phenomenon that has occurred at all levels of human structure and throughout recorded history. The conditions in which it is practiced and the techniques used are diverse. Abortion's status and attitudes in Western society are complex and, for the most part, evolving. A supermajority of people think that abortions should be legal when the mother's life or health is in jeopardy, when the fetus has severe congenital disabilities with a short or no life expectancy, and when the pregnancy was brought on by rape or incest. When a married woman wants no more children, an unmarried woman does not wish to wed the father, and when a family has a poor income and cannot support another child, many reject abortions.

On the other hand, there is disagreement among Americans on whether abortions should be legal when a child is born with severe but not necessarily fatal physical or mental defects [3]. They are more likely to be Christian by faith and firmly committed to organized religion in general, to be on the traditional or conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to women's roles in life, premarital sex, sex education, and civil liberties, and to have attained a relatively low level of education. They also tend to be more likely to approve of its availability. 'Pro-life' and 'pro-choice' campaigners frequently differ significantly in their sociodemographic traits and core ideals, particularly in traditional versus contemporary female roles.

According to the Pew Research Center, 61% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases, while 37 Percentage deem it illegal in all or most cases (as indicated in Figure 1). According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2023), this is an over-demographic shift from the past decade. Thus, it can be an assertion that the Supreme Court is out of touch with the current beliefs of the American population (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Current Beliefs on Abortion Rights

Note: Pew Research Center. (2023). Opinion on Abortion.

Over the past few decades, there has been a shift in the American belief system on abortion and abortion rights by age. Figure 2 illustrates the trend and migration of belief. This is also codified by a Gallup research poll [2]. It has been indicated that among adults under 30, abortion should be legal in all or most cases at a rate of 74%. There is a 62 Percentage belief rate of adults between 30 and 40. Among those in their 50s and early 60s, 55% express support for legal abortion, as do 54% of those ages 65 and older (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Current Beliefs on Abortion Rights by Age

Note: Pew Research Center. (2023). Opinion on Abortion.

As indicated, the issue of abortion has become a widespread political issue. According to Statista's (2023) breakdown of Republicans versus Democrats, there are some differences regarding an outright call for banning abortions. Still, there is a narrow margin between the parties for the continuation of permitting legal and safe abortions (see Figure 3).

 Figure 3: Adults in the United States who support abortion in 2023 by political party and level of legalization.

Note: Statista. (2023). Share of adults in the United States who support abortion in 2023 by political party and level of legalization.

Since there are limitations to the political overreach to the beliefs of the American population, and this issue remains a political hot button, there should be an evaluation of the distancing of the policymakers and the population's desires. 

Understanding Servant Leadership

The idea of servant leadership was first articulated in 1970 by Robert K. Greenleaf in his essay "The Servant as Leader." The concept of servant leadership popularized by Greenleaf stressed a change in leadership philosophy away from the conventional hierarchical approach and toward one focused on helping others. In Greenleaf's opinion, a servant leader is, first and foremost, a servant [9]. They put other people's needs and growth first and work to inspire and uplift their followers. The leader's priority is serving people before exercising power or pursuing personal benefit. Greenleaf noted several crucial traits and tenets of servant leadership that illustrate the compassion built into this leadership style. Servant leaders actively work to address the needs of others out of a great desire to serve others. Greenleaf's concept of servant leadership has significantly influenced leadership theory and practice. It emphasizes that empathy, service, and concern for others are crucial to good leadership. As a result, teams and organizations become more engaged and empowered [9]. 

Servant leadership encourages leaders to prioritize the development and well-being of their followers.  “Servant leadership has been described as an altruistic calling due to a leader's deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in others’ lives” [4]. They demonstrate humility, selflessness, and dedication to the growth and welfare of their followers. Empathetic servant leaders work to comprehend the viewpoints, emotions, and goals of those they lead. They pay close attention, are compassionate, and consider the needs of the individual and the community. Servant leaders show foresight by taking a forward-thinking stance. They believe in the long-term effects of their choices, foresee future obstacles, and collaborate with their followers to establish a shared vision and objectives. Servant leaders consider themselves to be stewards of their communities or companies. They assume accountability for the group's well-being and the resources it uses, working to improve them and assure their ethical and sustainable use. Servant leaders act ethically with honesty, integrity, and a sound moral compass [7]. They emphasize ethical decision-making, promote an environment of openness and transparency, and set an example for others. A leader who practices servant leadership puts their followers' development and welfare first. Servant leaders believe happy, content followers are more likely to be productive and involved in their community or work [4]. For their followers to realize their full potential, servant leaders think they must assist in their skill and talent development.

Servant leadership has several advantages. One benefit is that it might result in more employee engagement and satisfaction. Employees are more likely to be content with their work and more productive when they feel their leaders value and support them [19]. Increased invention and creativity are two additional benefits of servant leadership. Servant leadership can also lead to increased innovation and creativity. When employees feel they have a voice and are valued, they are more likely to develop new and innovative ideas. Servant leadership can help firms in addition to its benefits for personnel. People tend to be more trustworthy and cooperative in organizations with servant leaders [19].  There could be some negative aspects of servant leadership. Focusing on the needs of followers can take time for leaders, which is one possible negative. Another potential drawback is that servant leaders may need help making tough decisions, as they may be reluctant to make decisions that could negatively impact their followers.

Servant leadership is a philosophy in which the leader's primary role is to serve their followers or team members. The concept of servant leadership is rooted in many religious and philosophical traditions, but it has robust ties to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Bible, Jesus is often described as a servant leader, one who puts the needs of others before his own and leads by example. For example, in John 13:14-15, Jesus washes his disciples' feet and says, "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example that you should do just as I have done to you." Jesus' emphasis on service and humility is also reflected in his teachings about leadership. In Matthew 20:25-28, he tells his disciples, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their excellent exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.

Nevertheless, whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" [8]. These teachings have been foundational to developing servant leadership as a leadership philosophy. Servant leaders are expected to prioritize the needs of their followers, work to empower and support them and lead by example rather than through coercion or fear [9].

Overall, the leadership approach of servant leadership offers several advantages. It can improve corporate performance, employee engagement, satisfaction, creativity, and innovation. It is crucial to understand that better leadership approaches exist than servant leadership. Making difficult decisions can take time and be challenging for servant leaders. By embodying these values, servant leaders can create positive change in their organizations and communities. Servant leadership is a people-centric leadership style that prioritizes followers’ well-being and personal growth [9]. Servant leadership is a leadership philosophy that emphasizes the leader's role as a servant to their team members, focusing on their needs and facilitating their growth and development. 

Here are five critical points of servant leadership:

1. Service to others: Serving others is a critical component of servant leadership. Leaders prioritize the needs, welfare, and growth of their followers. They aim to comprehend their requirements, cater to them, foster their development, and foster a supportive work atmosphere.
2. Empathy and listening: Empathy and active listening are qualities of servant leaders. They try to comprehend their viewpoints, difficulties, and goals. Servant leaders encourage trust and open communication by exhibiting genuine empathy and listening intently.
3. Empowerment and support: By giving their followers the tools, freedom, and authority they require to excel in their jobs, servant leaders enable their followers. They remove barriers, provide direction and support, and foster a trusting culture that fosters individual and group development.
4. Ethical behavior: Norms and ideals of ethics serve as the foundation of servant leadership. Servant leaders behave honorably, truthfully, and openly. They prioritize the larger good when making decisions, show fairness and equity, and encourage moral behavior within the company.
5. Commitment to growth and development: Servant leaders are committed to professional and personal development for their followers. They support their growth by investing in it, offering coaching and mentorship, and generating chances for growth. Servant leaders contribute to the general success and well-being of the business by encouraging personal development.

It is important to note that these critical points are not exhaustive; servant leadership can manifest in various ways depending on the leader's style and the organization's context.

Understanding “The Jane Collective”

The Jane Collective was a gathering of women who provided abortion services to women in the Chicago area for around a decade [16]. The collective began in 1969 by a group of women who were part of the Women's Freedom Development in Chicago. At the time, abortions were illegal in most states, and women who looked for abortions regularly had to resort to hazardous and, in some cases, dangerous measures. The women of Jane recognized this issue and chose to act. Employing anetwork of contacts, Jane gave counseling and referrals to women needing assistance. They used a series of doctors who would provide the medical services required for individual care. However, due to cost prohibition, the group began to offer safe and affordable abortions to women, even though none had medical training.  They learned how to perform the procedure through trial, mistakes, and direction from sympathetic specialists [11]. Over time, Jane performed thousands of abortions safely and with limited complications [18]. They charged womenas they were what they could afford and, in numerous cases, gave abortions without charge. They unequivocally emphasized secrecy and persistentconsolation, providing a warm and inviting environment for women who were regularly perplexed and alone. 

The Jane Collective is an inspiring example of how social care can be utilized to form a genuine contrast within the world. They were spurred by a want to assist others, and they put the desires of others into their claim. They were gallant, devoted, and compassionate and had an enduring effect on women's lives. They made a difference. In expansion to the cases recorded, the Jane Collective illustrated hireling authority in the following ways: They were continuously willing to memorize and develop. They constantly sought current information and better approaches to improve their administrations [18]. They did not seek credit for their work and continuously gave tribute to the women. They were energeticaround their work. They accepted what they were doing and were committed to making a distinctionin the lives of others. The Jane Collective could be a powerful illustration of how hireling leadership can create a genuine contrast within the world. They were motivated by a craving to assist others, and they put the desires of others there. They were bold, committed, and compassionate and had an enduring effect on women's lives. They made a difference.  

Jane worked until 1973 when the Supreme Court's point of interest choice in Roe v. Wade legalized abortions within the United States. The women who had been part of Jane pioneered regenerative rights development, and their work propelledcomparative endeavors in other parts of the country. The history of Jane may be an adequate confirmation of the inventiveness and commitment of women willing to hazard their security and flexibility to supply safe and compassionate care to women in need.

The Jane Collective as Servant Leaders

The women of the Jane Collective were committed to helping the desires of women looking for abortions at a time when abortions were unlawful and dangerous. They give secure and affordable abortions, counseling, and referrals to women, prioritizing their patients' well-being and individual development. They put their patients' desires to begin with and appeared to have compassion, sympathy, and a commitment to social equity. In numerous ways, the Jane Collective encapsulated the essential characteristics of hireling administration, including tuning in, empathy, recuperating, influence, and commitment to the development of individuals. The Jane Collective was established and run by women committed to giving safe and reasonable abortions to women who required them. Whereas it is conceivable that a few individuals of the Jane Collective have shown leadership, it is not precise to depict the gather as "hireling pioneers" since that term particularly alludes to an authority logic that emphasizes serving the wants of adherents. The individuals of the Jane Collective were fundamentally centered on serving the desires of women seeking abortions instead of serving their followers' needs. However, their commitment to putting women's needs and well-being, to begin with, adjusts to the standards of servant authority in a few ways. The individuals of Jane illustrated compassion and kindness for the women they served and prioritized their safety and consolation. They, too, worked to engage women to require control of their regenerative well-being. In general, whereas the Jane Collective may not fit flawlessly into the worker administration system, their work was, without a doubt, guided by a solid sense of social equity and a commitment to serving the requirements of women marginalized and ignored by the broader healthcare system. In outline, whereas the Jane Collective and worker authority are different concepts that developed different settings, they share a few likenesses, especially in their focus on supporting the desires of others and prioritizing collaboration and belief.  

While the Jane Collective was not explicitly framed within the context of servant leadership, we can draw some connections between the five key points of servant leadership and the actions and values exhibited by the members of the collective:

1. Service to others: The Jane Collective was motivated by a genuine desire to offer women seeking abortion services that were both safe and easily accessible. They provided compassionate treatment and support during a period when abortion was prohibited, putting the needs and well-being of these women at the center of their purpose.
2. Empathy and listening: The Jane Collective members showed compassion by paying close attention to the women who sought assistance. They offered these women a secure place to discuss their stories and worries since they knew of their challenging physical, emotional, and frequently hopeless situations.
3. Empowerment and support: The Jane Collective enabled women to take control of their bodies by giving them the required tools and knowledge. They assisted women in navigating the difficulties and hazards of unsafe abortions by providing direction, emotional support, and practical support.
4. Ethical behavior: The Jane Collective members believed women should be free to make their own reproductive decisions. They maintained their dedication to offering private, safe abortion services while acknowledging the risks to society and the law, placing the health and autonomy of the women they treated first.
5. Commitment to growth and development: Although the Jane Collective's main priorities were immediate assistance and support, they also understood the value of long-term development. Some collective members later evolved into women's reproductive rights proponents and contributed to the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.

It is important to remember that the Jane Collective functioned in a distinct and challenging historical setting and that their activities were motivated by a particular cause. Although there are similarities between the work of the Jane Collective and the servant leadership tenets, it is crucial to consider the larger social and political forces that shaped their goals and course of action.

The Servant Leadership idea and The Jane Collective's efforts are highlighted as the study analyses the abortion controversy in the United States. The introduction of the paper gave a brief history of abortion in the United States, noting that it was allowed until the middle of the nineteenth century when legislation banning abortion started to be implemented. The Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, is then covered in the essay. The work of The Jane Collective, a group of women who offered safe and authorized abortions to women in Chicago before Roe v. Wade, is then discussed. Since The Jane Collective prioritized the needs of others over their own and operated with compassion and humility, the article contends that they qualify as servant leaders. The study points out a considerable discrepancy between the general public's perception of abortion and the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court, according to the report, is out of touch with what the American people currently think about abortion rights. More proof that The Jane Collective was a group of servant leaders would have improved the paper's argument. For instance, the report may have included instances of how The Jane Collective demonstrated compassion and humility by prioritizing the needs of others over their own. The article also covered the potential drawbacks of using servant leadership as a lens to view the abortion debate. Some would claim, for instance, that Servant Leadership is overly utopian and ignores the nuanced reality of the abortion debate.

Servant leadership focuses on the leader's job as a servant to their team members, attending to their needs and facilitating personal and professional development. Servant leaders are distinguished by their humility, empathy, listening prowess, empowerment, moral conduct, and personal and professional development dedication. A collection of women who exemplified servant leadership ideas is the Jane Collective. They prioritized the needs of women seeking abortions over their own needs out of a desire to serve others. They were dedicated to the advancement of the women they served and were modest, sympathetic, and caring. Others who desire to change the world are motivated by their employment. They demonstrated that being a servant leader and significantly impacting other people's lives are both achievable. The consequences of the study's findings are covered in the paper's conclusion. According to the report, the research points to Servant Leadership as a helpful paradigm for comprehending The Jane Collective's activities and the American abortion issue.

The essay is persuasively written and argued. The study thoroughly analyzes the American abortion debate, and its discussion of servant leadership is enlightening. The conclusion of the paper is succinct and straightforward. Despite these drawbacks, the research adds significantly to the body of knowledge on Servant Leadership and the abortion issue. The study's conclusions indicate that Servant Leadership can provide a valuable framework for comprehending The Jane Collective's activities and the American abortion issue. Overall, the essay adds significantly to the body of knowledge on Servant Leadership and the abortion debate. The study's conclusions indicate that Servant Leadership can provide a valuable framework for comprehension. 

Research Question

Can we classify The Jane Collective as Servant Leaders?