Thursday, May 19, 2016

South Carolina Joins Ban on 20 Week Abortions

 Yesterday, the legislation within South Carolina had passed a bill that would ban a woman's right to the procedure of an abortion after being pregnant for twenty or more weeks. The bill would also make no exceptions to women who got pregnant due to rape or incest. Under this bill the only times a twenty week abortion is justifiable is if the fetus poses a threat to the mother's life, or it is already discovered that the child will not make it to brith.

 With a republican majority in the chamber, the bill passed with a vote of 79 to 29. Supporters of the bill such as representative Wendy K Nanney, has defended the bill through the idea that many women would not wait up to twenty weeks before getting an abortion: "That is usually done very quickly. They don't wait until they are five or six weeks along."(Nanney) One of the more surprising facts about this story is South Carolina is not the first state to make such regulations on abortion policy. In fact there are actually sixteen other states that have enacted such restrictions. A policy analyst by the name of Elizabeth Nash has that there have actually been 322 enactment in the United States (since the conservative shift in 2010) that have had a negative impact on abortion.

With the alarming statistics what effect do you think these restrictions will have on the future of abortion? Do you think we will keep regressing until abortion is illegal?

Do you think the states that pass these legislations are over extending their power? Why or Why not? Either way also explain if you think the Federal Government or Supreme Court should intervene?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/south-carolina-legislature-approves-ban-on-abortions-at-20-weeks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=43&pgtype=sectionfront

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/05/17/south-carolina-legislature-passes-bill-to-ban-abortions-after-19-weeks/

9 comments:

Monika Kepa 1 said...

I believe that this is not completely unreasonable as there is only a president protecting abortion within the first trimester or the first 12 weeks. This said I also believe that the longer one waits to get an abortion the more difficult and even dangerous it is on the person who is pregnant. Although my personal opinion is irrelevant it would be important to point out that South Carolina uses the fact that most people don't wait long to get an abortion anyways as an argument to why limiting abortion rights would be fine. However many of the people who do take longer to get an abortion may not have been able to get one earlier this due to strict parents who would not let them, abusive partners or guardians, or other factors that could have slowed these pregnant women most desperate for an abortion and limiting their time to get one more than it already is could put them at risk of being unrepresented and stuck.

Scott Liu said...

I believe that in spite of restrictions, South Carolina’s new policies might actually cause pro-abortion communities to rally around the concept of abortion as a basic right. The fact that South Carolina is establishing new policies forces us to pay attention to the abortion conflict. LIberals could use this as an opportunity to gather more supporters and get more opinions into the controversy. This is similar to racism cases or cases in which an African American gets shot by a Caucasian officer. When the media focuses on these topics, they demonstrate that our society is regressing, yet forces discussion back towards progress. Therefore, South Carolina’s abortion policy might lead to unforeseen backlash.

Monica Mai said...

This is ridiculous and very regressive on progress. I think with the passing of this bill, women's privacy rights will be infringed on, especially since South Carolina is banning abortions even if the woman's pregnancy was due to rape or incest. I don't think that we will keep regressing until abortion is illegal because of the precedence of Roe v. Wade... oh wait, but Oklahoma just passed a bill that would make doing abortion procedures a crime and thus sending doctors who perform abortions to prison. That is even more ridiculous than South Carolina's bill and also kind of scary. Oklahoma definitely is extending their power because they overturned a Supreme Court precedence.

Lea Tan said...

I wish Roe v. Wade set a precedent that would make this illegal, but it doesn't because Roe v. Wade only says that mothers have full control over whether they want to have an abortion during the first trimester of their pregnancy. After that trimester, it ruled that the state's interests become influential. During the second trimester, the states can regulate abortion to protect maternal health, and by the third trimester, the states can even forbid abortion. Therefore, South Carolina's ban is not actually going against any previously set precedent, although it is going against the progress such cases as Roe v. Wade have made in abortion rights. I think that this will only spark yet more debate about abortion rights. I don't think we'll regress because we have already made progress and this will definitely bring people's attention back to the subject. In addition, I do think progress also depends on location within the country because political ideology has some correlation with location and the more liberal areas of the country are much less likely to pass any abortion bans.

Carolyn Ku said...

I disagree with the claim that the ban after 20 weeks will not affect many women because they get abortions early. In states with many regulations against abortions and few abortion clinics, it can take weeks for women to schedule appointments. South Carolina also has regulations such as requiring women to receive state directed counseling designed to discourage abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure. Affordable Care Act health plans and private health insurance can only fund an abortion if the woman's life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest, so saving for an abortion could take a woman weeks. (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-south-carolina). I think that all of these regulations place an undue burden on women who want an abortion, given that there is a basic right to abortion as determined in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and that the federal government should mandate that states lighten these restrictions.

Virginia Hsiao said...

I agree with Lea in that I wish that Roe v. Wade would ban practices like this and also agree with Carolyn in that the ban after 20 weeks will affect many women. We've seen issues like this in areas like Texas in which abortion clinics are essentially inaccessible due to distance or a great number of obstacles that make it difficult for women to attain abortions. In such cases, the 20 week limitation will greatly affect the individual. I don't necessarily think this ban is a regression, since change typically comes in the form of short increments. For abortion in particular, since it relates to religious beliefs or morality, which are typically difficult to debate, progress, by nature, is slow. Future directions will depend on interest groups, public views/opinion, and the future appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Virginia Hsiao said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachael Howard said...

Personally, I think a woman should be able to get an abortion no matter what the circumstances whether it was rape or incest or just by accident. However I do not believe that there should be some sort of time limit for example you shouldn't be able to get one when your 6+ months along unless it is threatening your life. I'm honestly conflicted because I believe life begins at first breath but I also believe that its not the best thing (I wouldn't go as far as to sat that it is wrong) to get an an abortion once the fetus starts looking like a human (if that makes any sense). But honestly its a woman's choice and while I do believe that most women get abortions early into the pregnancy, women should also have the right to wait a little later into the pregnancy to get an abortion because it is a huge decision to make and some people may have to wait in order to save up for an abortion. So in summery, I think this law should not have been passed. I think the 6 month limit is what states should keep and not lower it.

Christopher Duan said...

These restrictions beginning to cut into the rights of mothers-to-be are "baby steps" in the movement towards the banning of abortion outright. I think that we will keep moving in this direction until a tipping point. I predict that this point will come as the current generation (gen y) and millennials become more and more a part of out older population. I don't think that the states are over extending their power form a legal standpoint, as I think that states can pass these laws as long as they are constitutional, and the supreme court rules so, or does not make a ruling... The government should only intervene through the ruling of the Supreme Court. While I don't want to get too politically involved, I think that abortion should be allowed,. but states can make that decision on their own within the limits of constitutionality.