The Reproductive Rights Of Women

The topic of reproductive rights surrounding women in Texas has been a hot buttoned issue since the closing of many reproductive centers across the state. Recently damaging abortion restrictions were passed and therefor encroach on women’s reproductive rights even more by decreasing access to abortion care. Texas’ 84th Legislature, both passed HB 3994 as a law and had it Governor Abbott make it effective with his signature on July 8, or this year. This law complicates access to abortion services for mistreated and neglected minors and for those who do not possess specific identification cards in Texas.

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

Texas is a key state when it comes to looking at abortion policy, and the laws surrounding it. The fight for a women’s right of choice regarding her body came about in Texas in 1969 with the supreme court case regarding a women’s right to an abortion. Now, in 2016 the state of Texas continues to fight with congress regarding issues surrounding women obtaining an abortion. The HB2 bill, which people from all over the country are fighting both for, and against, is in the eye of the camera as Texas implements some of the strictest rules yet regarding who, when, where, and how abortions can be performed.

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy and childbirth related deaths. Now, it has become one of the safest medical procedures in the U.S.- with a safety record of over 99%. The U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down a law that prohibited birth control. The Supreme Court held that the law violated the right to marital privacy. This case is important to feminism because it emphasizes privacy, control over one’s personal life, and freedom from government intrusion in relationships. Griswold v. Connecticut helped pave the way for Roe v. Wade. The case of Roe v. Wade began in 1970 when Norma McCorvey took federal action against the district attorney of Dallas, Texas, Henry Wade to ask: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

The ability for women from all walks of life to have access to affordable and safe healthcare including abortion is something I’m passionate about. It is appalling to me as both a woman and as a citizen of the United States that women have had their reproductive choices made for them or extremely limited by legislatures, especially when these decisions seem to come from a place of ignorance. It’s been incredibly disheartening to watch the reproductive rights of women within the United States be chipped away and restricted over the past decade by state and federal legislatures.

While, I do not support this position, I have at times, struggled to support women on welfare who continue to have children receiving benefits so I understand the frustration others or the public may express in regards to welfare benefits being given to women who continue to have children while “the system” raises the child. However, it is not for to make choices regarding another women’s reproductive right and would not want someone make such choices for me on my behalf. The NASW and I both are in agreement that women should not be denied benefits based on her choice to continue to children while receiving welfare benefits. “Public policies and legislation,

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

Facts: Texas legislation passed House Bill 2 (H.B. 2) in 2013 which contained various provisions on abortion. A group of abortion providers, including Whole Woman’s Health, sued on the claims that those provisions denied equal protection, unlawful delegation, and used arbitrary and unreasonable state action, while also adding a burden on a woman’s ability to get a legal abortion. The district court dismissed these claims—as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—prior to being appealed to the Supreme Court.

In 1973, the US Supreme Court declared abortion a nationwide fundamental right through a trial called Roe vs. Wade and protected this right underneath the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy. A basic human right, especially one outlined by the Supreme Court, must never run at risk or threat chiefly because not everyone agrees with it. Under no circumstances should a pregnancy ever adjudge mandatory. Abortion is a Constitutional right and as a nation we must fight to give the right and freedom of safe abortions to women all around the nation, make birth control and sex education accessible to women, and raise awareness about the topic itself. (LawCornell)

Good’s article, “Why have so many states banned abortions,” offers an insight to the states that actually have put a ban on women’s right to abortion. This article offers a straight forward, non opinionated view into why some states have banned abortion. The article begins with stating that since 2010, 10 states have passed outright bans on abortions. Good is stating the facts, not leaning toward either side of the spectrum. Good’s use of statistics and several different examples of states that have already banned abortion, helped me as a reader to find factual evidence concerning this topic. His use of straightforward dialogue and discussion of why states are banning abortion, make for a solid and fact based argument.

On April 18, 2007, a Federal Abortion Ban was passed that criminalizes abortions in the second trimester which is when doctors advise that abortions are the safest and best time to protect the woman’s health. There has been a proposal to create state bans that make abortions illegal after twenty weeks! Although there is not a complete ban on abortions yet, it is clearly visible that the bans the United States has great affect on a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Within the process of getting an abortion, there are many deterrents set up before the women, such as restricting insurance, TRAP laws, abortion bans based on time span, mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods, biased counseling, and much more. Nowhere in the Constitution does

Under the Trump administration, women’s reproductive rights in developing countries have been dealt a devastating blow. It is our moral and ethical duty to fight regain these rights back for some of the most disadvantaged and powerless women in the world. Women should be able to have a choice about what happens to their own bodies, and be the masters of their own destiny. This policy is an assault on women’s health and we need to stand up and fight for the repeal of this unfair and unjust law.

Before I begin I have a question: You are holding a petri dish containing a fertilized egg in one hand and a baby in the other hand; you trip and can only save one which do you pick?

The district court dismissed the three arguments provided by abortion providers, and further ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that a substantial burden was not placed in the way of women who sought an abortion (Oyez 2016). Furthermore, the Supreme Court applied the substantial burden test, and brought up the question whether government interest actually promoted the health of women. The Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016) concluded that although government interest condoned women from the practice of abortion, it brought to light that liberty does exist and outlawed some of the discriminative laws against women found in our current social contract. The conclusion also found that restrictions enacted in 2013, and 2014 should be invalidated upon application of the substantial burden test. The ruling was invalidated, because a mere number of 7 or 8 functionally operating abortion clinics were unable to uphold the demand of abortion in the state. The argument provided by Whole Woman’s Health spoke for all women and found a solution to the burden, requirements, and restrictions that state and Federal legislative