Women Access Information On Legal Abortions

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 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)

Unlawful abortion was defined as “unlawful if performed not to save the life of the mother in question.” (Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003) However, in 1969, the Menhennitt ruling was established in the case R v Davidson. This more liberal interpretation stated that abortion could be ‘lawful’ under strict guidelines and circumstances; establishing that “abortion is lawful if performed to preserve the woman from serious danger. However, the danger must be equal to the dangers imposed by an abortion.” Since the Menhennitt ruling, no new interpretation have been made introduced, nor has any official legislation been introduced, leaving the decision up to the judge, and in some cases, a jury (Cica, 1998). This leaves abortion law hazy and unclear; evidenced by the fact that 14,000 abortions occur every year in Queensland. Stakeholder groups with conflicting views are in uproar over this

It was argued that anti-abortion laws were “the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct” (543). Another reason abortion was previously prohibited was because “the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman” (544). The court pointed out that this was no longer valid or relevant in this day of age. They explained that abortion was now “relatively safe”, and that “mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates of normal childbirth” (544). When abortion is prohibited, women seeking abortions sometimes tend to undergo illegal abortions, which are extremely unsafe. Therefore, the court said, “the state has a legitimate interest in seeing that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient” (544). When abortion was illegal, the mortality rate for women having abortions was significantly higher than when it was made

Susan Sherwin’s view on abortion is primarily focused through the lens of feminist philosophy. Her article focuses primarily on how the feminist view provides more holistic, and less cold view on the topic of abortion that is more inclusive of the mother. The feminist view of abortion is primarily focused on looking at the factors that affect the mother through the process of the abortion, such as a woman’s feelings around the fetus, is conception, her partner, and her obligations. These are all factors that are not usually thought of by non-feminist thinkers. This is usually because the discussion around this topic is, as the author puts it “generally grounded in masculinist concepts of freedom (such as privacy, individual choice, and individuals’ property rights with respect to their own bodies)” (Sherwin.1997, 100). This view, as she puts it, primarily focuses on the morality and legal aspects of abortion. The basis of Sherwin’s paper centers around a feminist model from which to look at abortion. This model takes into account the emotional impact that an unwanted pregnancy has on the woman, who will be impacted most by this event. It gives sole power of design to the woman, who “may make mistakes in their moral judgements, but no one else can be assumed to have the authority to evaluate and overrule their judgements”. (Sherwin.1997, 102) Sherwin also advocates against the division of the mother and the fetus as separate entities during bioethical discussions. This also

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.).

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.

It has been over 25 years since the Supreme Court of Canada decriminalized abortion. In 1988 the court declared that section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which did not allow women access to abortion services without the consent of a physician, infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights guarantee the “security of person” which the court determined included access to medical care and procedures that include abortion services (Bourgeois, 23). In principle the amendment of this law has been instrumental for women’s rights and their autonomy in reproductive health decisions, but in practice this might not be the case.

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).

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

Although experiences are subjective, women that have later abortions tend to feel more pain and distress following the procedure and so early abortion on a personal level, is preferred (British Pregnancy Advisory Service 2010). Delays caused by the complexity of regulation can therefore, not only intensify unpleasantness but intensify health risks. The law fails to recognise the responsibility of the role of nurses in abortion practise today. It needs to be updated so that nurses can continue to lead the abortion process but without obtaining the signature of two doctors. Training programmes should be offered to nurses to qualify them in independently carrying out abortions at all gestation stages. These reforms would avoid time wasting. More time would enable more available appointments for termination. Ultimately, it would break the barrier of accessing abortion at an early stage (Furedi 2008).

Abortions are necessary to be offered in Ireland under certain circumstances. The conditions and operations have a higher likelihood of being safer for the woman if the procedure is legal. The illegality of abortion makes the subject taboo, causing Irishwomen to become isolated since many are afraid to discuss or make any decisions concerning abortion. This poses a risk to the life of the mother and her unborn child. Destigmatizing abortion would back women and allow them to find support, information, and assistance from qualified doctors available to perform the procedure.

The Attorney General discovered the Irish teen’s situation and sought an injunction under Article 40.3.3 for “the right to life of the unborn”, delaying the procedure; the girl then threatened to commit suicide if she was not permitted an abortion. The attorney general was not justified in extending the law of abortion to other states where the services were legal since the law of Ireland did not extend to other countries. The preference for the life of the unborn child over the mother was evident in the court case. However, the circumstance for the loss of both lives called for immediate action in order to preserve any life. The teenage girl was allowed an abortion under Article 40.3.3 claiming “due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”. As a result of this court case, the 13th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution were made to Article 40.3.3 to legalize information on abortive services abroad and for the freedom to travel outside of Ireland for an abortion. The Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995 further outlined the 13th and 14th Amendments by requiring the patient to make the appointment for abortion abroad, mandatory pregnancy counseling, and for the information on abortion services to be provided along with information on parenting and adoption. The Censorship of Publications Act,

This trend, which is occurring in developing and as well as developed countries, has continued to the present, as abortion laws have been relaxed in five more countries within the past four years- Greece, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan and Turkey. During the same period, women's access to legal abortion has been significantly reduced only in Romania (in 1984). That nation's population policy also restricts the availability of modern contraceptive methods and authorizes the investigation of all women who experience miscarriages. In addition, the Irish constitution was amended in 1985 to prevent any future liberalization of its highly restrictive abortion law.