Persuasive Speech Outline On Abortion

Public health researchers with the UC San Francisco group, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, conducted a longitudinal study of 956 women who sought an abortion and were turned away. Diana Foster’s study reveals what happened to the women’s economic standing, health and relationship status after being denied their right. She claims that, “When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line” (Newitz). This is clear because one of the major factors in a woman’s decision to abort, is because of her awareness that she will not be able to financially support her child. One of a woman’s most formidable fears is to fail to adequately raise her child and provide him with his greatest odds to succeed. Naturally, a mother’s ultimate goal is for her children to have a better life than she did. This fuels the majority of people’s ambition and determination to obtain a comfortable and promising life style, to then pass on to their offspring. Women living in poverty seek abortions because they do not want to bring a child in a life of misery and suffering. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is not just blindly decided, all aspects of the mother’s and child’s life are considered. In fact, after initially being denied the right to abort, the survey demonstrates that 45% of the women were on public assistance (Newitz). However, Foster concludes, “a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76% of the turnaways were on the dole…67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line” (Newitz). Therefore, it is evident that not allowing women to legally have abortions creates more strain on the state because of these mothers' increased dependence on social assistance programs.

Abortion has been a complex social issue in the United States ever since restrictive abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s. By 1965, abortions had been outlawed in the U.S., although they continued illegally; about one million abortions per year were estimated to have occurred in the 1960s. (Krannich 366) Ultimately, in the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, it was ruled that women had the right to privacy and could make an individual choice on whether or not to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. (Yishai 213)

Unlike the government in A Brave New World the United States government does not require anybody to take birth control pills or have an abortion. However, it is still offered to a variety of females. “Pro Life Actions” lets us know that 75.4% of females between the ages fifteen and twenty-nine get abortions once finding out that they are pregnant. This percentage would be higher if it wasn’t for the certain restrictions abortions had. Based on “Religious Tolerance’s” website, a female cannot have an abortion after her first trimester. If she does get an abortion after the first trimester, it is considered to be killing an actual human being. Although abortion clinics are available for all females, most of the females do not know who actually funds these clinics.

In the 19th century, after tremendous progress in surgical processes, abortions were then conducted by surgeons on a wide scale, while medical abortions are used concurrently. However, as abortion technology prospers, legal restrictions came with it. In 1803, a English statute abolished the previously-legal first trimester abortions. The act “condemned the willful, malicious, and unlawful use of any medical substance when used with the intent to induce abortion” (Stern, 1968). In 1821, Connecticut enabled the first statute in the United States regulating abortions. Within 10 years, states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, Alabama, and others enabled abortion restriction statutes, and by 1968, 50 of the 51 jurisdictions in the United States have prohibited abortion except in the case women’s life is endangered (Ibid., at 3). In 1965, Britain, however, legalized abortion for “medical conditions of the mother, for socio-economic reasons, for eugenic considerations, and for pregnancies which resulted from rape or incestuous intercourse”, which is still law today (Ibid, at 4). In Canada, abortion has been legalized since 1969 through Bill C-150 if “a committee of three physicians determined that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's life or health” (Norman, 2012). In 1988, Canadian Supreme Court struck down bill C-150’s provision requiring committee approval to receive an abortion in its decision R v Morgentaler, legalizing abortion across Canada for any reasons (Ibid.).

Abortion, for the vast majority of people is not a subject that is easy to talk about. According to the World Health Organization, out of the 211 million pregnancies, 46 million end up in abortion and 18 million of those abortions are done in what WHO considers unsafe conditions (World Health Report, 2007). Unsafe conditions are defined by WHO as, “ abortions performed by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both” (World Health Report, 2007). The maternal death rate for women who have unsafe abortions is 350 out of 100,000, and there are other complications that are not fatal but can lead to disease or disability (World Health Report, 2007).

Pollitt, Katha. (2014). Abortion: No More Apologies. Nation, 299(19), 12-17. Retrieved on February 26, 2017 from EBSCOhost

Prior to the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade, abortion was legal in the United States under common law and with several stipulations. It was legal under the advice of medical personnel or in the attempt to save a mother’s life. Though abortion were widely available it was considered a secretive and “back alley” procedure that threatened the life of the patient and the persons conducting the abortion. In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. A survey conducted between 1965 and 1967 found that 8 in 10 low-income women in New York City who had an abortion attempted a dangerous self-induced procedure (planedparenthood.com).

In this study they estimated mortality rates from 1998 to 2005. Their data was gathered from reports posted out by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. They looked at pregnancy-related mortality, common maternal comorbidities, and the characteristics of women. The data they found was over a ratio of 100,000 births and 100,00 abortions. In the discussion part of their study and one of their recognized strengths they explain that expressing information like mortality risks into ratio format is easier to understand. Pregnant women considering their options should be entitled to have accurate information about their risk factors (Raymond & Grimes, 2012). They found that 10.4 deaths occur per 100,000 live births and 0.6 deaths occurred per 100,000 abortions. All together their results conclude that according to national data sets, legal abortion in the United States remains much safe than

States that are strict on abortion policies have implemented it well into their healthcare system. The criterion that should be most focused on is the equity of the outcomes. The purpose of this research and policy alternatives is for more access and equal access to abortion/pregnancy education in general.

This case touches on a very sensitive controversial topic in the United States- abortion. Many people are against abortion and many people agree with abortion. Both perspectives have great reasons supporting their side, but either way the decisions are life changing or sometimes life threatening. Children suffer from abuse, neglect, illness, and the imperfect foster care system. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is a case where Texas placed restrictions on abortion clinics an original ruling that required physicians of abortion clinics to have “admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion” will be performed and to comply with the same guidelines provided for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC). Ambulatory surgery

Most states within America have passed laws that either protect or take away the reproductive rights since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme court case (Pridemore 611). Although abortion is one of the most predominant social issues within the US, very little academic attention is given to the topic as opposed to crime violence (611). As Pridemore states, “The mid 1990s saw various responses at the federal level, including the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the Madsen v. Women’s Health, Inc. (1994) decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of clinics to establish buffer zones to protect staff and patients from harassment” (612). Any type of harassment towards any abortion clinic, its staff, or its patients is taken very seriously and is a federal crime in some states (612). Some statues ban access to an abortion such as a ban of public funding, termination of father/husband rights, or even the access to an abortion for a minor

The article that I chose is called "What choice?", and was published by TIME magazine on January 14, 2013. The author briefly discusses the various arguments made in favor of supporting abortion in the United States, as well as some reasons why the Pro-choice movement isn't fully implemented after the U.S Supreme court ruling Roe v. Wade was enacted. The article continuously draws back to the Red River Woman's clinic in North Dakota to emphasize some issues faced by the patients, physicians, and staff. Overall, the article made me consider some views regarding the legalization of abortion and how it was carried out. Nonetheless, my views supporting Pro-life has not changed.

Abortion seems to be a major issue in the world today especially in the United States. With the political race for President just getting stated this issue will be on the forefront of many complains and debates. An article over abortion was published a few days ago and covers some troubling trends in state law that have been passed so far this year. States like Arizona and Arkansas have passed laws that further interfere in the doctor-patient relationships that surge mandatory delays for women seeing safe and legal abortion. Such laws are becoming more popular in parts of the Southern states that have impacted reproductive rights and banning abortion being covered by insurance. This issue is ethically relevant to what we have discussed earlier

Abortion providers need to follow same standards as other medical procedures therefore, abortion providers shouldn’t get special treatment. If abortion providers are doing some kind of medical procedure they need to possess certain things that hospitals would need in case something had gone wrong. For instance, if something were to go wrong and needed immediate medical attention; the abortion staff must be trained in order to help the matter and if things are too serious they must be close enough to a hospital so other trained professionals can aid the matter so the patient's life and wellbeing can be guaranteed. Abortion clinics must also be accessible to the handicapped so that if one of 863,640 handicapped women would like an abortion,

The few women that were allowed to have an abortion were also restricted by regulations that were “tailored” made by the facilities. Which means that less facilities were providing women with abortions and in some occasions women were forced to seek help in facilities that have less resources. On a research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, “90% of abortions were performed in non hospital facilities: 64% in abortion clinics, 22% in other health clinics, and 4% in physicians’ offices” (Russo, Horn, & Schwartz, p. 186). These facilities often put women health at risk because sometimes they do not have other tools besides the ones needed for abortion. Not only were women constitutional rights being violated but, their privacy.