How Abortion Regulation Affects Women Essay

Although abortion is a political topic that seems very recent, in the United States it dates back to before the early 1820s. Connecticut is the first state to have passed any laws regulating abortion. In 1821, they pass a law prohibiting the use of any sorts of a toxic substance that causes a miscarriage after quickening (the moment a pregnant woman first feels fetal movement) (Wilson, Jaque). Many other states followed Connecticut’s lead (Wilson, Jaque). Besides trying to humanely discard of fetuses, states began banning abortion for population control reasons as well. “In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of ‘native’ Anglo-Saxon

When touching the subject of abortion, one must consider that there are two sides battling for control. That is right, abortion has literally turned into a war zone where even the unlikely of individuals do the unthinkable. Each side has their motives and methods for contradicting the other. For instance, there are cases and events that support both sides of this issue.

The issue of abortion has always been a controversial one for citizens of the United States. Abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has been planted in the uterus (Abortion). An individual’s stance on this controversial issue categorizes them into one of two very different groups. An individual who feels that a woman should not have an abortion- due to moral or religious views- is said to be “pro-life”. Coincidently, those who feel that a woman should have the right to choose abortion are said to be “pro-choice”. “Pro-life” supporters point to the practice of abortion as an immoral one. Supporters state abortion is immoral because it takes away the rights of the unborn fetus, since activists consider human

In the news article “Abortion: Every Woman’s Rights” Sharon Smith wrote an article about women’s rights to get abortions prior to the hearing of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey court case, “which threatened to severely restrict women access to abortion” (Smith). Women wanted reproductive control over their lives and felt that they were not equal to men no matter what advances they got at work and how high their level of education was. The women’s right movement wanted women to have the choice of abortion for all women, the rich and the poor. In the US, thirty- seven states did not provide

Before women had rights to decide whether they could keep their baby, some states didn’t allow abortion, therefore requiring women to give birth to their child. In today’s current issues, abortion is still a controversial subject with millions of people supporting it or not supporting it. Every woman has the right to make changes to her own physical body, and those rights should not be taken away, according to the constitution. In the very famous case in 1973, “Roe v. Wade”, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. In the article, “Roe’s Pro-Life Legacy”, it is explained how after this movement, the right to abortion, lives have changed and led to lower abortion rates (Sheilds 2013.)

In every society whether it was legal or legal, abortions were used to control fertility. In the United States it was practiced legally until about 1880, by then most states had banned it except to save a woman's life. It was widely practiced through the entire period it was illegal. In the 1890’s there were an estimate of two million abortions per year and, one to two million annually during the 1920’s-30’s. Whether a

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott (2014), The American Civil Liberties Union, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and a Texas law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of several women’s health-care providers in Texas for seeking to enforce their rights and those of patients for declaratory judgment and pertaining to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs by enjoining two provisions of the 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2. (Planned Parent Hood v. Abbott, 2014). To many, Planned Parenthood challenges the state of Texas abortion law as it places an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It also

Historically, abortion was not regulated in the United States until the 20th century. Prior to the 1900s, abortion occurred regularly and was performed by midwives, along with other reproductive health care procedures (Ehrenreich & English, 2010). The rise of the medical industry and a growing immigrant population led to more interest amongst doctors in restricting abortion (Davis, 1983; Solinger, 2015). The American Medical Association began to lobby for the criminalization of abortion and the medicalization of birth, claiming to be interested in protecting women from the harsh chemicals used to induce abortion (Solinger, 2015). Solinger (2015) writes:

This tiered system sets up privileges that are difficult, if not impossible, to break out of. “Even before the cuts less than 20% of women in need… were served… out of the 1.7 million women in need” (Stevenson, 2014). A legislation that was created to benefit and, as the advocates for the bill have said before, create the ideal world without abortion has succeed in undermining the health and safety of the individuals within the state. The benefits of this bill help little to no one as people are forced to conform based around moral ideals.

Before Roe v. Wade, women lived in consistent angst and fear of their own bodies, the consequences that were brought by unwanted pregnancies, and the very dangerous back-alley abortions. Preceding 1973, unwed women who got pregnant were fired from their employments. The younger women were sent to maternity homes for mothers who were unwed, and their children were put up for adoption (Gielow). Pregnant women who were married had no choice but to continue to carry their pregnancies to term, nevermind their situations and circumstances. They were forced to carry the unborn child if even if they had many other children to care for and couldn’t possibly afford caring for another child. The women were forced to continue carrying their pregnancies, even if they had cancer, or the fetuses couldn’t survive outside the mother’s womb (Gielow). Roe v. Wade was a dark time. Women were desperate to find an abortion. The methods that were used were both dangerous, and many times, not effective. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual. The “They jabbed into their uteruses with knitting needles and coat hangers. They 'd try to insert chemicals, drain cleaner, fertilizer, radiator-flush, and miss the cervix, corrode an artery and bleed to death” ("Abortion ProCon.org."). Regardless of the legal status of abortion, its fundamental underlying cause, unintended pregnancy, has been a continuing reality for American

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

Women’s reproductive rights were on center stage when a case from Texas made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the case Roe v. Wade, and nullified a Texas law making it illegal to abort a fetus during a pregnancy, for any reason.2 The court moved a traditionally state-regulated policy into a federally protected right for women.3 What some legal analysts feel is odd, is the arbitrary way the justices decided the first-trimester timeline, and if the Constitution can recognize right to privacy.4 The ruling was a split decision, and has still kept the country split in their

The issue of abortion is notoriously controversial. Since the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, states have enacted different restrictions on the procedure. These restrictions vary from state to state. Nineteen states currently have laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and forty-one states strictly prohibit abortions except in cases of life-endangerment. One particularly incendiary area of abortion law is that of public funding. However, as of this year there are only seventeen states that cover abortion procedures through public funding. In this paper we will discuss federal abortion legislation, while describing the laws and political ideologies of the following states: Texas, California, New

People -regardless of race, religion, or age- have the right to food, shelter, and adequate health care. However, due to the changes in the Texas Women’s Health Program, many women may not be able to afford the expensive of health care. Planned Parenthood is no longer covered by the low-income state insurance plan because the organization offers abortion services (Texas Women’s). Politicians, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry argue that the revised program is “great news for Texas women” (Kou). Unfortunately Perry is no different than Carl N. Karcher; both men believe they made “Progress” in their decisions (Schlosser, 28). Karcher only sees the “Progress” being made in his hometown and how the success can benefit him, while Perry only sees a way to segregate clinics which are pro-choice and not how it affects the female population of the state. While the program offers a list of clinics that are covered, many of them are run by male doctors; this might prevent a woman who has been sexually abused to receive the care she needs and are inconveniently located. Allowing Planned Parenthood to be covered by the revised insurance would improve these problems. The clinics are run only by women, located in every major city, and offer all the services covered by Texas Women’s Health (Benefits/Sexual Health Topics). However, contrary to what many people believe, Planned Parenthood was not created as an abortion clinic, but as a clinic which specialized in women’s health care services