Abortion Essay Introduction

- In New York Times of February 27, 2016, similar to ones around country, the 2013Texas’ law was written by anti-abortion activists with only one purpose of shutting down clinics since its two main requirements have nothing to do with protecting women’s health. First, admitting privileges are often hard for doctors to get for bureaucratic reasons. Second, ambulatory surgical center standards are prohibitively expensive to meet and medically unnecessary due to the fact that abortion is one of the safest of all medical procedures, with a complication rate less than one-tenth of 1%. (The Editorial Board,

that allow women to receive an abortion. The issue is that there are too many procedures prior to

as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed in the first 20 weeks

In 2013, North Dakota state legislature passed a slew of regulatory laws with regards to abortion. (Davidson) Once a fetal heartbeat could be detected, abortion was prohibited. An abortion could not be sought solely because of fetal “genetic anomalies.” And, abortions could now only be performed by physicians who possessed admitting privileges at a hospital in the area. This last law threatened Red River Women’s Clinic, the state’s only abortion provider, as the three doctors they employed at the time commuted from Minnesota and Colorado. (Nelson)

In 2005 it was estimated that 83,210 abortions were performed in Australia , although Australia does not have a national data collection on the outcomes of pregnancy, the number of abortions occurring is estimated by the use of a combination of private insurance claims and Medicare statistics. It is also estimated that around one third of Australian women will experience an abortion at some point in their life.4 As stated before, there are two types of abortion available for women in Australia; medical and surgical. The continued process towards ensuring the widespread availability to medical abortion has been slow, whereas access to surgical abortion has been around considerably longer.

Our newly elected president reinstated “Global Gag Rule”, which forbids giving federal funding to any foreign organization that performs abortions or, in many cases, that even mentions them as an option to women. These types of restrictive abortion laws make it more difficult and costly for the modern women to obtain an abortion. The laws pose the idea that an increase in the cost of an abortion should in return cause the number of abortions to decrease. Yet, these antiabortion laws do not have a significant positive effect on unintended birth rates. According to Doctor Nancy Krieger in the peer reviewed American Journal of Public Health, US infant death rates declined most quickly in 1970 to 1973. In the 1960s, an average of more than 200 women every year died as a result of botched illegal abortions. In addition to those who died in the course of illegal abortions, many thousands more suffered serious illness or injury. Due to the humiliation associated with having an illegal abortion, many women who suffered complications were reluctant to visit a doctor for treatment. It is evident that these antiabortion laws to not affect the modern woman positively. Instead of women going out and getting an abortion that could ruin their bodies for the rest of their lives, an alternate solution the government could make could be to make

Abortion was a lawful alternative before 1973, from that point onward, premature birth was unlawful unless the lady 's well-being was undermined. Presently in 2017, as legitimized premature birth has turned into a regular piece of American life, an alternate side to it has risen. Where ladies once were prematurely ending since they “didn 't need a child”, the reasons being given now are ending up noticeably altogether different. Fetus removal has transformed into something that ladies are being constrained into from spouses unwilling to be fathers, out of dread of the monetary weight, out of frenzy from losing their occupations, out of frenzy from quitting school, or end up noticeably destitute, or out of dread of their folks showing them

For women in large swaths of the United States, access to abortion services is more limited now than at any time since Roe v. Wade. The goal of antiabortion advocates is to make abortion impossible to obtain by layering multiple restrictions, even though many claim that their motivation is only to protect women’s health. Attempts to stop abortion by making it illegal or hard to obtain, however, have never succeeded in ending abortion, either in the United States before Roe v. Wade or in other countries where it is currently banned or severely restricted by law. The primary result of abortion restrictions is to expose women to more health hazards. Women will self-induce if that is their only option, despite the fact that it puts their health at risk—and in many cases, their liberty, as well.

“Various nations had already taken steps to liberalize their abortion laws. Liberalization did not necessarily lead to greater reproductive choice. These new laws arguably provided women with more access to the medical procedure, but physicians, not women, were made responsible for determining whether or not the procedure was necessary” (31-32).

However, supporters of this law, state that it is for women who are victims of violent crime. Therefore, it does not affect the rights of women to receive an abortion. On the other hand, critics of this law claim that it is getting in the way of the rights of women because it is giving pro-life activists a additional leg to stand on by the government recognizing the fetus as a life with rights. Rather than giving the fetus rights, they believe that only the mother’s legal status should be elevated. While they are at the clinic the practitioner has to tell the mother what they are getting themselves in to. Since women must make an informed choice regarding whether they are going to end up having the abortion or not, then they need to be well informed of the dangers of childbirth as

"No woman, ever, woke up and thought, 'all my friends have had an abortion, I need to get pregnant so I can have one, too. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, something has failed her, badly. It might be rape [or incest], it might be a broken condom, it might be bad information on what prevents pregnancy. Or maybe the story about how she had too much to drink and instead of waking up to a hangover, like ever male in history, she woke up pregnant," said American women, Lauren Telesca. Pro-life or pro-choice? On one hand, people say that the government has a duty to preserve all human life. On the other hand, some say that individuals have control over their own

Abortion has been legal in the United Kingdom since the Abortion Act of 1967, which was further amended in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, lowering the length of pregnancy in which it is legal to have an abortion from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, owing to advances in medicine and a decrease in the age of viability of a foetus. There are four criteria which allow women to have an abortion, as long as they have the consent of two doctors, involving risk to the physical or mental health of the mother or the foetus or mental health of any existing children. In 2004, 95% of abortions in the UK were certified under the statuary ground of risk of injury to the

Although experiences are subjective, women that have later abortions tend to feel more pain and distress following the procedure and so early abortion on a personal level, is preferred (British Pregnancy Advisory Service 2010). Delays caused by the complexity of regulation can therefore, not only intensify unpleasantness but intensify health risks. The law fails to recognise the responsibility of the role of nurses in abortion practise today. It needs to be updated so that nurses can continue to lead the abortion process but without obtaining the signature of two doctors. Training programmes should be offered to nurses to qualify them in independently carrying out abortions at all gestation stages. These reforms would avoid time wasting. More time would enable more available appointments for termination. Ultimately, it would break the barrier of accessing abortion at an early stage (Furedi 2008).

According to The Irish Family Planning Association in 2015; 3,451 women travelled to Britain for an abortion, 263 of them were under 19. Knowing that so many women and young girls have to go to such lengths for something so simple is infuriating. That girl struggling to get to England just for one simple procedure that could ensure her continued schooling and eventual career could one day be myself, or one of my friends. It’s scary facing our current

This trend, which is occurring in developing and as well as developed countries, has continued to the present, as abortion laws have been relaxed in five more countries within the past four years- Greece, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan and Turkey. During the same period, women's access to legal abortion has been significantly reduced only in Romania (in 1984). That nation's population policy also restricts the availability of modern contraceptive methods and authorizes the investigation of all women who experience miscarriages. In addition, the Irish constitution was amended in 1985 to prevent any future liberalization of its highly restrictive abortion law.