Scarlet Letter A Is For Abortion Analysis

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

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth. What a lot of people don’t realize is a miscarriage is also considered an abortion even though it is not medically induced; it is called a spontaneous abortion because it is not a medical procedure. Recently a study was done and it showed that the number of abortions worldwide have gone down considerably because of family planning, having reasonable birth control methods introduced, the prices for them lowered and the availability of them are accessible by the younger generation. More and more we are seeing young women using abortion as a birth control method, this is making the

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.

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

The United States has been divided now over the issue of abortion for thirty-three years since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973. As of today, over 45 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Pro-choice advocates hold these 45 million abortions as being 45 million times women have exercised their right to choose to get pregnant and to choose to control their own bodies. To pro-life, or anti-abortion, advocates these 45 million abortions constitute 45 million murders, a genocide of human life in the United States propagated by the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. The debate over abortion in the United States is thus a debate of two extremes. One side argues from the personal liberty of the mother. The

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 the Nation has been divided into two schools of thought. Both sides have convincing arguments that are heard all around. The Pro-Life group believes that abortion is ultimately murder. Even if that human is not born you are killing the potential of a living homo sapien. The Pro-Choice group on the other hand looks at this not as murder but an infringement of our constitutional rights and that we are empowering women to make this a decision about their body and not to be obstructed by the government’s views.(Abortion Procon.org) Maureen Shaw is a feminist, writer, and a mother. She has wrote many articles for websites including, Quartz, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, and many others. Maureen Shaw a writer on social issues has wrote an article on how becoming a mother has “made her even more Pro-Choice.” on the website Rewire. This article describes how the conservatives in the United States and those of conventional thinking have a clouded view on why women have abortions and why they are getting abortions. Shaw’s journey into motherhood has strengthened her view on abortion and on the right-wing political ideologies to judge her motivations.

While the history component is important in understanding the future of abortion in the United States, an examination of the varying ideological arguments is paramount as well.

Since the 1960s, the fight to receive accessible and affordable abortions has been a largely controversial issue in the United States. The case Roe v. Wade was the climax of that fight, for “the Court held that... only a pregnant woman and her doctor have the legal right to make the decision about an abortion” (“History of Abortion”). Although Roe v. Wade ultimately made abortions legal in the States, there are still setbacks for affordable and accessible abortions today, and many of these conflicts may be directly traced to state-by-state determination of abortion laws.

In the article “Defending Choice, Yet Again: An Unapologetic Defense of Abortion Rights-- and About Time,” written by Lindsay Beyerstein in The American Prospect, abortion and the reason chose to be Pro Choice are addressed. Many people throughout life can overcome the question, is abortion right? The only problem is no one can never give the reason for yes or no. The information provided in this article shows of ways that people should look back and reevaluate their decision on thinking that abortion is wrong. It has been detected that in many places recently, “Abortion access has decreased dramatically in Texas since the state’s restrictive anti-choice law went into effect in 2013” (Beyerstein). Also it is described how, “...Texas

All in all, The New York Times editors purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to help make abortion legal. They use emotional connection with the audience, a sophisticated word choice, and logic. Ultimately, the writers have proven that abortion is a woman’s own choice, not the

Susan Yanow begins by advocating for the increased availability of procuring abortions for all women no matter their income, location, or age. She offers a complaint against the many barriers for woman to obtaining an abortion, “State restrictions… create almost insurmountable barriers to access, especially for rural, young, and low-income women.” Yanow argues that women should not have to travel long distances or deal with unnecessary requirements in order to “get the reproductive health care they need.” She resolves this by insisting on integrating abortion into primary care in such a way that family physicians at home be allowed to perform first trimester abortions.

A person wrote a letter to the editor in “The News-Sentinel”, saying that insurance should cover women who want to go out and have babies. On the other hand, this person wants women who want to have an abortion to come up with the money themselves and that the government or insurance should not cover abortions (“The Rant,” 2009). Many believe that some women use abortions as a form of birth control. For women who find themselves in that situation, the expense for those types of abortions should be paid for by those women. However, in certain cases such as incest, rape, genetics, failed birth control and endangerment to the life of the expectant mother. Those situations should be covered by insurance.

In the past few decades, the issue of abortion rights has created debates and controversy within the United States. Those who criticize the act of abortion – pro-life – argue that the act of abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. Those who support the legalization of abortion – pro-choice – argues women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in all states – a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade. However, it has become increasingly common for states to create anti-abortion laws, which makes it more difficult to have an abortion. In 2014, Missouri state representative Rick Brattin proposed H.B.131, a house bill that would require women to receive a written consent from the biological father in order to have an abortion. This bill serves to prevent women from having an abortion.

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

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.)