The War On Women 's Health

For starters let us look at this situation from a political standpoint in favor of pro-choice advocates. In the infamous case of Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe’s two lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, “sought to challenge the legality of Texas’s antiabortion law” (Roe v. Wade). In any level of government,

The fight between pro-life and pro-choice is one of America's hottest debate topics, and our government is especially involved in the health of pregnant citizens, their children, and their bodies. While many of pro-life the lawmakers are cis males and will never be pregnant, they still

In today’s society, the separation of church and state is a fundamentally important aspect of our government. Most any citizen would agree that the government should operate based on the law and the constitution, not on the individual 's religious beliefs, yet when the issue is Abortion, that stance is flipped. The debate over abortion rages on despite the supreme court giving women the right to abortion in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v Wade. Looking at both sides objectively, the pro-choice arguments lineup with facts, while the pro-life arguments are either supported by facts yet purposefully misinterpreted, or simply not factual at all. State governments pass laws that regulate abortions and abortion centers all in the attempt to close these centers down and stop women from getting abortions at all, including situations of rape or incest. Just as the government in Brave New World controls the bodies of women by keeping them on contraceptives and controlling their bodily functions through medication, the American government seeks the same control over what women do and don’t do with their body by denying them abortions and birth control.

On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the

have been organizing and lobbying local, state and federal government to restrict abortion. Not only that, but they have also lobbied evangelical voters to gain support. That puts politicians in a tight spot, either work against abortion or leave politics. (1) So far, 18 states require abortion procedures done at hospitals, and Wisconsin requires it done no closer than 30 minutes away from a

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

Abortion is a controversial topic that has plagued the country for decades. Even after the 7-2 Supreme Court trial (Roe vs. Wade) made it legal for women to choose to get abortions. This decision was based off the right of privacy coupled with the agreement between the woman and the state. Due to this decision abortion rights vary from state to state, in fact, about 85% of United States counties do not provide abortion services. Even though, abortion is ten times safer than the actual process of giving birth and 68,000 women died from resorting to “back-alley abortions.” Knowing all this, there are still two main groups arguing

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

The Washington Examiner, a politically focused magazine, published a republican oriented editorial titled “A Democrat’s War on Women,” which details how democrats are doing an injustice to women by supporting the Clintons. The editorial claims that the Clinton’s are “sex apologists”-- people who discredit those who claim they have been raped. Although Bill Clinton was involved in a sex scandal, the case is obsolete and rape accusations against him were never proven. Bill Clinton’s past sex scandal should not be used as a reflection of Hillary Clinton and the democratic party as a whole.

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

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.

In conclusion, both articles provide supporting facts that describe one of the biggest roadblocks to women’s healthcare, politics. Regardless of your stance on the issue, women’s health is an issue often debated in politics. Both authors share one common perspective, that women in America feel healthcare could be improved if their issues were better acknowledge by those who have the power to make necessary changes.

Women make up just slightly over half the U.S population (US Census Bureau, 2010) and should not be even considered a part of a minority group. The female population should acquire the same equal research attention as men do, especially when it comes to health issues. The unavoidable, yet quite simple realities of breastfeeding, menstruation, menopause, along with pregnancy require special scrutiny from medical experts. Those medical specialties are generally referred as gynecologists or obstetrics, who focus on the exclusive needs of a female’s reproductive health throughout their lifespan. Historically, the health needs of women have been disregarded as well as their fundamental rights. However, over the past few decades, it has grabbed the media and the government’s attention causing some major changes in support of women’s rights and health care.

In this essay, the theme is focused on President Trump’s actions and mindset towards women's health care. The original article is called, “Trump relaxes Employer's Duty on Birth Control”, by Robert Pear and Rebeca R. Rulz. But the article was revised on October 6, 2017, and it is now titled as, “ Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate.” The article represents inequalities of women's health care, focusing on birth control. Trumps Administration wants to deny the rights of women insurance that covers birth control, and I believe that the role of gender and society are two main reasons why Trumps Administration would think it is acceptable to deny certain treatments for women.

It seems that not a day goes by without either some major feminist activist, journalist, or politician angrily declaring that there is a ‘war on women.’ They claim that in the Western World, society oppresses women to prevent them from making their own choices and using their independence. But those statements are far from the truth. In Western Europe and in much of North America, women are the freest they have ever been, taking up some of the highest-ranking offices in politics, running major corporations, and working in cutting-edge fields. Yet, left-leaning politicians, figures, and activists still make those claims. The argument that there is a ‘War on Women’ is both false and destructive to the mission of feminism, as it disregards the