Based on this Article - https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/
U.S. Public Continues to Favor Legal Abortion, Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade
(The Pew Research center is a “fact tank” that takes in data on various political issues and makes objective analyses).
A few weeks ago, Planned Parenthood - a family planning organization that provides free services like STI testing, PAP smears and other cancer screenings, contraceptives, consultations, as well as abortion - withdrew from Title X. Title X is a federal funding program for reproductive health organizations, and they recently added a new provision to their law: “None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” (Statutes and Regulations, HHS Department).
This decision has faced criticism: Why leave a critical source of funding for all the other services solely for abortion’s sake? And practically, separating abortion into a privately funded service might have been a smarter move. But morally, creating that separation would send the message that abortion is not an acceptable part of women’s health care.
Here's the argument: If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she should not have to be. No matter when, how, or why she became pregnant, she should make the decision to continue because she is the only person who will have to carry it to completion. That is why abortion is just as integral to reproductive health as any other service. (Feel free to discuss, I’ll happily go into more detail in the comments.)
But a large minority (38%) think abortion should be illegal, at least in most cases. In 1973, Roe v. Wade established abortion as a legal procedure for women who wished to terminate a pregnancy. Many interest groups, for various religious or moral reasons, opposed this decision, and some states, such as Alabama in recent months, have taken measures to make abortion as inaccessible as possible.
A principal worry of the anti-federalists was that the supreme court “ will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.” (Brutus I). Here we see a supreme court decision that cleary does not sit will with individual states, but does with the majority of the nation. At a federal level, those decisions protect minorities within a single state. Some consider a violation of State’s rights, while others see it as a necessary precaution against tyranny of the majority.
Should it be possible for a blanket decision to be made by such a small body (9 judges)? Should it be possible for a single state to subvert the laws of a whole nation?
Tell me your design.
8 comments:
The way I see it, the big problem that exists with abortion specifically is an inherently flawed philosophy. I see no reason people that don't support abortion should be called "pro-lifers" because in opposing abortion they can potentially endanger a women's life by letting them risk birthing health complications. (There's also the issue of women who want abortions because their economic situations do not have room for the expense caused by a child) However, I think states should respect this decision made by the Supreme Court as they would be restricting a right that was, in the Supreme Court's eyes, in line with the constitution. Also, the pro-life movement was started primarily by the Southern Baptist Church, and one of the things our government was based upon was the separation of church and state. So, in reality, this decision isn't being made for people's rights, but rather to go in line with religious beliefs.
The issue with abortion is being made more difficult than it needs to be. The Roe v Wade case in 1973 should be overturned by the Supreme Court. Just for a fun fact, Norma Mccorvey, the woman who got the abortion, regretted her decision the rest of her life and put the blame on the Elites who talked her into suing. Back to the subject at hand tho, the reason why it should be overturned is because the decision should be up to the states. There are too many people on both sides of the argument to have a federal opinion that overtakes the states. I am definitely pro-life because I think abortion is morally wrong. Despite this tho, I am not saying it should be illegal everywhere. I am saying it should be state to state and let them decide.
While I agree that abortions should not be illegal anywhere, I actually would argue that abortion laws should not be decided by the state but rather the federal government (in which they would allow abortions). A woman should be able to decide whether or not they should have an abortion based on their circumstances. Some cases include socioeconomic instability, societal implications, pregnancies based on rape cases, and more. Especially if a woman gains a pregnancy that was never wanted in the first place, they should be able to abort the child whether the situation that led to the pregnancy was or not in their control. Women are the ones that have control over their body and no institution can limit that right. As pregnancy is more of a private matter based on morals/ethics, religious or specific cases, the ability to have an abortion should be made available to all. If Roe v. Wade was overturned and states had the power to decide this law, then women who do not want a child would have to travel to other states that would allow the procedure or even bear a child, causing more problems and inconveniences. It is true that some women might regret their abortions,however, that decision should never be made by law. The government’s purpose is to protect every individual's natural rights, and I believe that abortion falls under that right.
The largest difficulties with maintaining the ability for women to gain abortions, I think, lies with states atttempting to find legal methods of restraining abortions. Of these include creating superfluous standards on abortion clinic equipment, making the abortions overly expensive, the heartbeat bill, which was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade trial, and other laws that restrict, but not prevent, women from getting abortion. The American Healthcare Act, or Trumpcare, would not have covered abortion as part of insurance, had the act not been struck down by the Senate. In this sense, Roe v. Wade cannot protect women from getting abortions easily and cheaply, and more must be done in order to ensure that a woman can decide when she wants to be pregnant and when she does not.
Maybe it's because I am not religious, but I always find it hard to see the sense in the arguments that some opponents of legalizing abortion use in this debate. No matter how much abortion may be against "God's will" or something similar, I agree with both Srimaye and Steven in that women should possess control over their own bodies and that opposing abortion is more likely to drive women to seeking cheap or less safe abortion procedures that ultimately inflict more harm. In this case, since the outcome of Roe v. Wade represents the majority of the nation, I feel like it is justified that the Supreme Court has the power to make such large decisions. Even for other cases besides this one, although the minority of the nation may not be represented, if a single state was able to intervene in the Supreme Court, there would most likely be several cases where final decisions would almost never be made. Just like how the amendment process for the Constitution is difficult to finish and policies are always being fought over, giving lower courts power can only extend the length of a conflict and make it hard to come to a decision that can actually be implemented.
Reading All your comments, I'd like to say that the legality of abortion does not compel anyone to get one. It's legal for people to drink in every state, but many people abstain from drinking for moral reasons. The same goes for abortion: a woman who opposes it for her own religious or moral reasons can choose not to get one, as much as a woman who needs/wants one can choose to get one. People have the right to oppose abortion; freedom of thought and religion and speech apply to everyone, but that opposition cannot impose their version of morality on every individual in the country, or even within a single state. The law needs to protect individual liberty, and that includes the freedom to choose.
Post a Comment