“Abortion bans” article in New York times is from about a couple weeks ago which means it is the most acute to be discussed now. The other readings talk about states actively engaging in changing the existing laws towards abortion and trying to complicate it for women in the US. The NY Times article actively discusses the nine states and their legislature towards abortion regulation comparing it with “Roe’s standard” and explicitly explaining in tables the role and impact of “time” in abortion, trimesters and weeks as the time is called in pregnancy. Roe definitely is a Landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that established “trimester” regulations all over the country. Why? I have agreed with the Court taking a compromise position on when the life begins but not because the other views are rigid but because it has been unproven; and I think an intermediate decision that combines both choice of a woman and regulation of the state to avoid chaos in the country and to satisfy both sides has to be reached. I think that embryos and fetuses are not independent and self-determining beings, and abortion is termination of a pregnancy, not a baby, and may be performed in the first three months for sure and at a later period of time if necessary since in the US a person’s age is calculated from the birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census.
The readings about banning abortion in several states in the US as if presume that “abortion” is “killing”, and avoid talking about complicated life circumstances a woman might deal with. Denying abortion at all and in many instances denying abortion to a woman who has reached certain amount of weeks in the pregnancy, remains very controversial, but to me, inhuman and definitely violating the decision Roe was based on.
Having an abortion in the first and sometimes second trimester is around 14 times safer than giving birth. Surveys and medical data also show that pregnancy-related complications are more common than with abortion. Myths about an abortion being a dangerous procedure are myths. The American Medical Association and other institutions said that “abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”. For comparison, the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. The risk of not having a chance to get pregnant after abortion is a myth, too. Fertility investigations performed in different years showed that women who had a previous abortion experienced the same future fertility as those who had natural pregnancies. I think that many myths arose around this topic since it has been very controversial and lacking proofs.
I disagree with the arguments that women should not have a right to abortion. I strongly believe that the right to abortion cannot be denied to women. I have many reasons to believe so, and some of my reasons are below:
I think that women who receive an abortion would be less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied an abortion. If a woman decides that she does not want a child and wants to stop her pregnancy and is unable to do so, she would feel anger, regret, depression, and that might cause mental problems that would affect not only her but a child. This argument relates to two other very important implications I want to mention. The first implication is that women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to start being on public welfare or below poverty line as well as become victims of domestic violence. A woman denied an abortion who is not ready for a child would have to manage her life, accommodate work hours and wages and it is not always possible to be done; many companies get rid of more tired and less effective pregnant or just given birth women. If a woman is single and she loses her job it would lead to bad consequences for herself and a child. The same can be applied to women in abusive relationships that are so often silenced. Being pregnant from an abusive partner and being unable to get an abortion will make a woman stay in the situation of domestic violence and get potential problems with mental health that would affect herself and a child. The second implication is that a baby should not come to the world unwanted. Having a child is a very important decision that requires consideration, planning and preparation. Many reasons may exist why a woman or both a woman and a man would not want to have a child after conception, but having an unwanted child is only going to hurt everyone and cause later mental and financial problems of a child.
Additionally, legalizing abortions decreases cases of unwanted babies and connected with it mental and physical suffer of women. It empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies and a choice to determine their future. Making abortions legal reduces the amount of welfare spent on poor mothers and their children and reduces welfare costs of taxpayers.
The right to privacy that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but implied in the 9th Amendment’s reservation of the rights to the people, in my opinion, can be applied to the right for an abortion. Moreover, taking into account the social context of modern time, one of the most capitalist, individualistic and successful countries the USA contradicts itself by fighting for women’s equality, quotas and rights and denying the right of a woman to determine her fate, success and life path.
The article “Abortion Without Apology” from Jacobin Magazine, which was written in 2015, discusses the history of the fight for the right to an abortion in the context of the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970’s and today. The article begins with discussing the Supreme Court Case Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole, which is a case that challenges a Texas law that would require clinics to become like mini hospitals that only employ local doctors. This in turn, would result in many clinics having to close, and ultimately restricting women’s access to abortion. The author of the article included the statistic that “between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women have tried to give themselves abortions at some point in their lives,” according to a recent study. This number was shocking and really upsetting to read. Through the history of the fight for the right to an abortion in the United States, we have seen that when access to abortion is restricted, women do not stop getting abortions, they instead get unsafe and illegal abortions which is not helpful for anyone.
This article also discusses the Hyde Amendment that was signed into law in 1977. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in the extreme cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. Because of this amendment, women started dying from illegal abortions again. This is yet another example of politicians, and mostly male politicians, deciding the fate of women’s reproductive rights. I completely agree with the argument that abortion is health care. While not every woman will have an abortion in her life, I believe that every woman should have access to one and the right to make that decision for themselves. The author summed up these feelings when they wrote, “Abortion is still legal, yet somehow we’ve been transported back to that 1969 hearing, debating under which special horrible circumstances women are allowed to control their reproductive destiny.” It is a scary time given our political climate, when so many rights are at stake right now. I hope that as a country, we will continue to move forward, and not backwards in history where women have to live in a society where they do not have fundamental rights over their own bodies.
Abortion without apology is an article that begins with the Texas state law that requires clinics to become only employ local doctors, and that they had to be mini-hospitals. Women were even attempting to perform abortions on themselves. After the shooting of a major abortion clinic, the Supreme Court agreed to review Texas abortion restrictions in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole. Reform bills around the US occasionally allowed abortions if the women who could prove they had been raped or suicidal to an all-male panel of doctors and psychiatrists. Women started standing up and explaining that they were the true experts since they were the women this was being done to. They felt that the abortion reforms were insulting to women. Women started openly describing their illegal abortions or the fact that they were stuck with a child they did not want. New York became the first to allow abortions without proof that the women had sick, raped, and more. However, after the Helms amendment which took made abortions illegal for Medicaid patients.
It is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening. People kept trying to figure out what do do with this “difficult” decision when people were hurting themselves trying to end something that they were not ready for. The fact that women had to prove to an all-male panel that they were raped or sick is ridiculous because they are not experts. Women know themselves best and the fact that they actually had to prove something in order to get the abortion they desperately wanted is not only unfair but unjust. In addition, it is not fair to the children who are with mothers who do not want, or do not have the ability to care for them. The fact that women spoke up made the difference here, but it is very easy to slip back into the past which is why we all must make sure that abortions never become illegal again.
One quote that I would like to analyze from your post is “it is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening.” The anti-abortion movement believes that they are “stopping abortions from happening.” Realistically, they are stopping legal abortions from happening. The article gives an unthinkable statistic surrounding the number of illegal abortions have taken place. Criminalizing abortion does not stop them from taking place, they just stop safe abortions from happening. Due to the life-altering situation of having a child, illegal abortions will always exist in highly restrictive states. This contradicts the “public health” argument provided by many anti-abortionists, given that illegal abortions can result in the death of the patient or major health complications for life.
I feel like all these abortion laws are ultimately a way for white, male legislators to control women’s bodies. They, along with pro-life organizations post biased, inaccurate information that set an emotional tone for its target audience. Such emotion distracts the audience from seeing what the accurate information and data is about abortion. It’s honestly really sad that they believe and want others to believe that a fetus and an unborn human individual should have the same rights as a woman.
Carrie Buck was raised in a foster family by John and Alice Dobbs from the age of 3 to the age of 19 Carrie was raped by her foster parents’ nephew and as a result of the rape she became pregnant. Due to these circumstances her foster family committed her to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded. After Carrie give birth to her daughter she was mentally evaluated and recommended for a sterilization procedure because her mental age was defined at the level of 9-year-old(Carrie’s mother’s mental age was at the level younger than 8). Carrie Buck didn’t want to be forcefully sterilized by the state, so she appealed the court’s order. Despite her appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court both ruled in the States favor and Carrie Buck was sterilized. One of the main arguments of the case was the fact that that Carrie Buck, her mother, and her daughter were all suspected of being feebleminded so “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
I personally was surprised to learn that in the United States people with disabilities were treated this way not so long ago. Moreover, society had attempted to systematically eliminate certain social and economic problems (such as poverty, prostitution, mental illness) through selective sterilization during this period. This case was not only shocking, but also reminded me of the Third Reich policy in Nazi Germany that “unfit” people, who could not contribute to society were simply eliminated. In my opinion, in the Buck v Bell case the government took the responsibility of selective genetics on themselves when their true role should be to provide justice and protection for all of it citizens regardless of their level of IQ.
One quote that I would like to analyze from your post is “it is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening.” The anti-abortion movement believes that they are “stopping abortions from happening.” Realistically, they are stopping legal abortions from happening. The article gives an unthinkable statistic surrounding the number of illegal abortions have taken place. Criminalizing abortion does not stop them from taking place, they just stop safe abortions from happening. Due to the life-altering situation of having a child, illegal abortions will always exist in highly restrictive states. This contradicts the “public health” argument provided by many anti-abortionists, given that illegal abortions can result in the death of the patient or major health complications for life.
Skinner v Oklahoma was brought to the Supreme Court when under Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 Skinner was about to be sterilized because he had been convicted of a crime three times. Skinner argued that the act infringed on his fourteenth amendment right. The court decided that it did indeed violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
The effect of the Skinner v Oklahoma case was that any sterilization would be given strict scrutiny. Skinner v Oklahoma decision is especially revealing of attitudes about race and gender considering the Buck v Bell case and forced sterilization of blacks. The fact that a man convicted of three felonies was able to avoid sterilization, yet a developmentally disabled woman shows that the good of society was not behind the Buck v Bell case, as was used for justification.
The article Abortion without Apology, talk about women’s fight for abortion. It starts off by talking about the attacker of planned parenthood in Colorado Springs. In this attack three people were found dead and nine were injured. It is said that the Supreme Court could do some more damage when it puts Whole Women’s Health V. Cole in consideration. It states that, the men in doctor’s suites are now more dangerous than then the men in the street. In the case of Whole Women’s Health V. Cole, it challenges the Texas law requiring clinics to become mini-hospitals and employ only local doctors. If Texas is allowed this law to stay, what this would mean for the other states is, the legislatures will be free to pass similar clinic closing restrictions. In the state of Texas, the wait time could be anywhere from 20 or more days. The studies have shown that around 240,00 women have tried to preform abortion on themselves. The articles states that women seek abortions as a backup contraceptives and says that women would not have that if the constitute power blocks it. Women’s liberation activists who won legal abortions rights wanted to get rid of abortion laws and in place a “model law”. This demand, along with disruptive tactics, public truth-telling about criminal abortions with class-action law suits that started nationally. Abortion was only allowed to women who were raped, or suicidal due to reform bills languished in legislatures. These women had to face an all-male panel of doctors and psychiatrists. This was during the 60s. the article states that there are important lessons to be learned from these movements. The abortion demand was a part of the women’s liberation movement instead of standing as on issue. This was a demand for repeal not reform this movement was not sycophantic to the liberal. When a part of a vast goal of women’s liberation and free at preemptive, compromising abortion is able to be successful.
This article shows the things that women went through to fight for their right. I agreed with the last statement that when something is a part of a vast goal, when something is compromised things can be successful. I think it is absurd that women are told, what conditions they are allowed to have an abortion. These are people making decision for the people who have to live with. With the attack on planned parenthood, some might view this as an act that was done because the same was being done in those clinics. This is not the way to go about it. Taking someone else’s life will not bring another back. They are taking the life of an already born person, who has built for themselves and built relationships. Without the legal abortions that women looked to as a contraceptive, you will have women, as stated in the article that harm themselves trying to perform the abortion themselves. It seems as if women are going to have to continue a never ending war.
Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:
“Abortion bans” article in New York times is from about a couple weeks ago which means it is the most acute to be discussed now. The other readings talk about states actively engaging in changing the existing laws towards abortion and trying to complicate it for women in the US. The NY Times article actively discusses the nine states and their legislature towards abortion regulation comparing it with “Roe’s standard” and explicitly explaining in tables the role and impact of “time” in abortion, trimesters and weeks as the time is called in pregnancy. Roe definitely is a Landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that established “trimester” regulations all over the country. Why? I have agreed with the Court taking a compromise position on when the life begins but not because the other views are rigid but because it has been unproven; and I think an intermediate decision that combines both choice of a woman and regulation of the state to avoid chaos in the country and to satisfy both sides has to be reached. I think that embryos and fetuses are not independent and self-determining beings, and abortion is termination of a pregnancy, not a baby, and may be performed in the first three months for sure and at a later period of time if necessary since in the US a person’s age is calculated from the birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census.
The readings about banning abortion in several states in the US as if presume that “abortion” is “killing”, and avoid talking about complicated life circumstances a woman might deal with. Denying abortion at all and in many instances denying abortion to a woman who has reached certain amount of weeks in the pregnancy, remains very controversial, but to me, inhuman and definitely violating the decision Roe was based on.
Having an abortion in the first and sometimes second trimester is around 14 times safer than giving birth. Surveys and medical data also show that pregnancy-related complications are more common than with abortion. Myths about an abortion being a dangerous procedure are myths. The American Medical Association and other institutions said that “abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”. For comparison, the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. The risk of not having a chance to get pregnant after abortion is a myth, too. Fertility investigations performed in different years showed that women who had a previous abortion experienced the same future fertility as those who had natural pregnancies. I think that many myths arose around this topic since it has been very controversial and lacking proofs.
I disagree with the arguments that women should not have a right to abortion. I strongly believe that the right to abortion cannot be denied to women. I have many reasons to believe so, and some of my reasons are below:
I think that women who receive an abortion would be less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied an abortion. If a woman decides that she does not want a child and wants to stop her pregnancy and is unable to do so, she would feel anger, regret, depression, and that might cause mental problems that would affect not only her but a child. This argument relates to two other very important implications I want to mention. The first implication is that women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to start being on public welfare or below poverty line as well as become victims of domestic violence. A woman denied an abortion who is not ready for a child would have to manage her life, accommodate work hours and wages and it is not always possible to be done; many companies get rid of more tired and less effective pregnant or just given birth women. If a woman is single and she loses her job it would lead to bad consequences for herself and a child. The same can be applied to women in abusive relationships that are so often silenced. Being pregnant from an abusive partner and being unable to get an abortion will make a woman stay in the situation of domestic violence and get potential problems with mental health that would affect herself and a child. The second implication is that a baby should not come to the world unwanted. Having a child is a very important decision that requires consideration, planning and preparation. Many reasons may exist why a woman or both a woman and a man would not want to have a child after conception, but having an unwanted child is only going to hurt everyone and cause later mental and financial problems of a child.
Additionally, legalizing abortions decreases cases of unwanted babies and connected with it mental and physical suffer of women. It empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies and a choice to determine their future. Making abortions legal reduces the amount of welfare spent on poor mothers and their children and reduces welfare costs of taxpayers.
The right to privacy that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but implied in the 9th Amendment’s reservation of the rights to the people, in my opinion, can be applied to the right for an abortion. Moreover, taking into account the social context of modern time, one of the most capitalist, individualistic and successful countries the USA contradicts itself by fighting for women’s equality, quotas and rights and denying the right of a woman to determine her fate, success and life path.
The article “Abortion Without Apology” from Jacobin Magazine, which was written in 2015, discusses the history of the fight for the right to an abortion in the context of the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970’s and today. The article begins with discussing the Supreme Court Case Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole, which is a case that challenges a Texas law that would require clinics to become like mini hospitals that only employ local doctors. This in turn, would result in many clinics having to close, and ultimately restricting women’s access to abortion. The author of the article included the statistic that “between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women have tried to give themselves abortions at some point in their lives,” according to a recent study. This number was shocking and really upsetting to read. Through the history of the fight for the right to an abortion in the United States, we have seen that when access to abortion is restricted, women do not stop getting abortions, they instead get unsafe and illegal abortions which is not helpful for anyone.
This article also discusses the Hyde Amendment that was signed into law in 1977. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in the extreme cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. Because of this amendment, women started dying from illegal abortions again. This is yet another example of politicians, and mostly male politicians, deciding the fate of women’s reproductive rights. I completely agree with the argument that abortion is health care. While not every woman will have an abortion in her life, I believe that every woman should have access to one and the right to make that decision for themselves. The author summed up these feelings when they wrote, “Abortion is still legal, yet somehow we’ve been transported back to that 1969 hearing, debating under which special horrible circumstances women are allowed to control their reproductive destiny.” It is a scary time given our political climate, when so many rights are at stake right now. I hope that as a country, we will continue to move forward, and not backwards in history where women have to live in a society where they do not have fundamental rights over their own bodies.
Abortion without apology is an article that begins with the Texas state law that requires clinics to become only employ local doctors, and that they had to be mini-hospitals. Women were even attempting to perform abortions on themselves. After the shooting of a major abortion clinic, the Supreme Court agreed to review Texas abortion restrictions in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole. Reform bills around the US occasionally allowed abortions if the women who could prove they had been raped or suicidal to an all-male panel of doctors and psychiatrists. Women started standing up and explaining that they were the true experts since they were the women this was being done to. They felt that the abortion reforms were insulting to women. Women started openly describing their illegal abortions or the fact that they were stuck with a child they did not want. New York became the first to allow abortions without proof that the women had sick, raped, and more. However, after the Helms amendment which took made abortions illegal for Medicaid patients.
It is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening. People kept trying to figure out what do do with this “difficult” decision when people were hurting themselves trying to end something that they were not ready for. The fact that women had to prove to an all-male panel that they were raped or sick is ridiculous because they are not experts. Women know themselves best and the fact that they actually had to prove something in order to get the abortion they desperately wanted is not only unfair but unjust. In addition, it is not fair to the children who are with mothers who do not want, or do not have the ability to care for them. The fact that women spoke up made the difference here, but it is very easy to slip back into the past which is why we all must make sure that abortions never become illegal again.
One quote that I would like to analyze from your post is “it is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening.” The anti-abortion movement believes that they are “stopping abortions from happening.” Realistically, they are stopping legal abortions from happening. The article gives an unthinkable statistic surrounding the number of illegal abortions have taken place. Criminalizing abortion does not stop them from taking place, they just stop safe abortions from happening. Due to the life-altering situation of having a child, illegal abortions will always exist in highly restrictive states. This contradicts the “public health” argument provided by many anti-abortionists, given that illegal abortions can result in the death of the patient or major health complications for life.
I feel like all these abortion laws are ultimately a way for white, male legislators to control women’s bodies. They, along with pro-life organizations post biased, inaccurate information that set an emotional tone for its target audience. Such emotion distracts the audience from seeing what the accurate information and data is about abortion. It’s honestly really sad that they believe and want others to believe that a fetus and an unborn human individual should have the same rights as a woman.
Carrie Buck was raised in a foster family by John and Alice Dobbs from the age of 3 to the age of 19 Carrie was raped by her foster parents’ nephew and as a result of the rape she became pregnant. Due to these circumstances her foster family committed her to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded. After Carrie give birth to her daughter she was mentally evaluated and recommended for a sterilization procedure because her mental age was defined at the level of 9-year-old(Carrie’s mother’s mental age was at the level younger than 8). Carrie Buck didn’t want to be forcefully sterilized by the state, so she appealed the court’s order. Despite her appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court both ruled in the States favor and Carrie Buck was sterilized. One of the main arguments of the case was the fact that that Carrie Buck, her mother, and her daughter were all suspected of being feebleminded so “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
I personally was surprised to learn that in the United States people with disabilities were treated this way not so long ago. Moreover, society had attempted to systematically eliminate certain social and economic problems (such as poverty, prostitution, mental illness) through selective sterilization during this period. This case was not only shocking, but also reminded me of the Third Reich policy in Nazi Germany that “unfit” people, who could not contribute to society were simply eliminated. In my opinion, in the Buck v Bell case the government took the responsibility of selective genetics on themselves when their true role should be to provide justice and protection for all of it citizens regardless of their level of IQ.
One quote that I would like to analyze from your post is “it is astounding how far people will go to stop abortions from happening.” The anti-abortion movement believes that they are “stopping abortions from happening.” Realistically, they are stopping legal abortions from happening. The article gives an unthinkable statistic surrounding the number of illegal abortions have taken place. Criminalizing abortion does not stop them from taking place, they just stop safe abortions from happening. Due to the life-altering situation of having a child, illegal abortions will always exist in highly restrictive states. This contradicts the “public health” argument provided by many anti-abortionists, given that illegal abortions can result in the death of the patient or major health complications for life.
Skinner v Oklahoma was brought to the Supreme Court when under Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 Skinner was about to be sterilized because he had been convicted of a crime three times. Skinner argued that the act infringed on his fourteenth amendment right. The court decided that it did indeed violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
The effect of the Skinner v Oklahoma case was that any sterilization would be given strict scrutiny. Skinner v Oklahoma decision is especially revealing of attitudes about race and gender considering the Buck v Bell case and forced sterilization of blacks. The fact that a man convicted of three felonies was able to avoid sterilization, yet a developmentally disabled woman shows that the good of society was not behind the Buck v Bell case, as was used for justification.
The article Abortion without Apology, talk about women’s fight for abortion. It starts off by talking about the attacker of planned parenthood in Colorado Springs. In this attack three people were found dead and nine were injured. It is said that the Supreme Court could do some more damage when it puts Whole Women’s Health V. Cole in consideration. It states that, the men in doctor’s suites are now more dangerous than then the men in the street. In the case of Whole Women’s Health V. Cole, it challenges the Texas law requiring clinics to become mini-hospitals and employ only local doctors. If Texas is allowed this law to stay, what this would mean for the other states is, the legislatures will be free to pass similar clinic closing restrictions. In the state of Texas, the wait time could be anywhere from 20 or more days. The studies have shown that around 240,00 women have tried to preform abortion on themselves. The articles states that women seek abortions as a backup contraceptives and says that women would not have that if the constitute power blocks it. Women’s liberation activists who won legal abortions rights wanted to get rid of abortion laws and in place a “model law”. This demand, along with disruptive tactics, public truth-telling about criminal abortions with class-action law suits that started nationally. Abortion was only allowed to women who were raped, or suicidal due to reform bills languished in legislatures. These women had to face an all-male panel of doctors and psychiatrists. This was during the 60s. the article states that there are important lessons to be learned from these movements. The abortion demand was a part of the women’s liberation movement instead of standing as on issue. This was a demand for repeal not reform this movement was not sycophantic to the liberal. When a part of a vast goal of women’s liberation and free at preemptive, compromising abortion is able to be successful.
This article shows the things that women went through to fight for their right. I agreed with the last statement that when something is a part of a vast goal, when something is compromised things can be successful. I think it is absurd that women are told, what conditions they are allowed to have an abortion. These are people making decision for the people who have to live with. With the attack on planned parenthood, some might view this as an act that was done because the same was being done in those clinics. This is not the way to go about it. Taking someone else’s life will not bring another back. They are taking the life of an already born person, who has built for themselves and built relationships. Without the legal abortions that women looked to as a contraceptive, you will have women, as stated in the article that harm themselves trying to perform the abortion themselves. It seems as if women are going to have to continue a never ending war.