Sarah+H.+-+POSITION+PAPER

Home

STUDENT NHD MEMOS

Essential Question: REVOLUTION, REACTION, REFORM-- Who speaks for the unborn? Abortion should be a women's personal decision over her own body without government interference.

Sarah Heuerman

When the United States was created, our founding fathers believed we all had natural rights over our own bodies and our own decisions. Those basic rights though have been restricted and taken away in our recent history. For women, the right to make decisions over their own body regarding abortion was granted in 1963, but since then, their rights have incredibly been restricted.The thought that drives this contraversy is who should speak for the unborn? This question has been debated in the government constantly but anti-abortionist have taken over recently and done everything they could to restrict a women's choice and make sure pro-choice people do not change them. For Pro- Choice people" The emphasis is not on the right of an abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control for women" (Ruth Ginsberg). For anti-abortionist or pro-life it is a religious, moral and or health issue but these groups have manipulated facts to get away with their restrictions and because of it, women have few control over their own body while the government has most of it. the unborn, nonliving lives have been put before our societies living and breathing women. Our country was built of off values to allow people freedom, but women have had their right of decision taken away based on the few politicians beliefs that a non-living embryo is more important than a women's freedom. The anti- abortionist government needs to stop interveining with a women's right to an abortions so they can have freedom over their own body and decisions.

The issue was thought to be solved when the Obama administration took office. Previously abortion rights under the Bush administration were downed upon and limited but in 2009 a new pro-choice president was in place with high hopes that the previous restrictions on women's right to choice would lifted. Due to the "state ballots, some provocatively pro-life measures went down"(Panel debates ethical issues of Abortion), Obama took a stride toward pro-choice for the peoples wants and needs. He promised that one of the first things he would do is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act, a proposed federal law that would nullify virtually every state and federal law and policy that in any way limits access to abortion, ... in addition, the FOCA prohibits any level of government from enforcing any policy that would discriminate against against abortion"(Obama Administration). Regardless of these good intentions to grant women their freedoms, the senate and other republicans have been able to obstruct Obama's plans as pro- life supporters continue to revolt.

In reaction of the revolution of women demanding a choice, people have generated strong opinions. Opponents believe it is morally wrong, while pro-choice believe they have to right to their own body and decisions. Pro-choice advocates preach that “ the government ’ s role is to help women ’ s health and decision making, not to make life-altering decisions for them ” (Panel debates on ethical issues of Abortion). Pro-choice support the option to have an abortion without the government factoring into their decision but is not pro-abortion or anti-life as many conclude. The opposing, pro-life or anti-choice group is " not going to give up on the abortion fight until abortion is no longer accepted aspart of our culture." (Cain wades into Abortion controversy again). They perceive abortion as the same as murder and think the government should make it illegal excluding exceptions. In their perspectives, women should not have a choice over their own body but the government should. This issue has become more important as the election nears. Popular republican candidates such as Mitt Romney state they are "pro-life [and]believe that abortion is the wrong choice" and also have a history of restricting abortion rights. If an anti-choice president is chosen to take charge of our pro-choice society, he make decisions on his interest instead of the people's interest to ban abortion and restrict a woman's right to her own body. The anti-choice groups have taken over high government positions and in the next election have a chance to control the future of a woman's right to choose.

The pro-choice revolution arose in the United States during the 1970's in result of one women's steps which triggered a short time of our government supporting the right to a choice. Although the 1970s was after a previous revolution of women rights, no attention was brought to the issue of the government controlling a women's personal decision for her own body." In the early 1970's, a national policy regarding abortion did not exist, and abortion rights were dependent upon the laws in the fifty states- each state decided abortion policy for itself"(Abortion Rights) and "most state laws banned abortion"(Roe vs. Wade). Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe went out to changed that though. McCorvey, a divorced woman with a child from Texas, was allegedly raped while walking home and wanted an abortion but was not able to legally get one due the previous law banning abortion. She ended up giving birth to the child and giving it up for adoption but she was set out to challenge the Texas law. It went all the way to the supreme court in 1973, known as the Roe vs. Wade trial which determined "that abortion is constitutionally protected, and no legislature may oppose more than trivial restrictions on it" (Abortion Timeline). Anyway it was an overall success; the trials decision still had restrictions to cause future conflict. The court ruled that "women have an unimpeded right to abortion only in the first three months of pregnancy"(Abortion: Outlook) but after the first trimester, the government has control over the decision of abortion for the mother. For some people, this wasn't enough and for others, the law was corrupt and unmoral creating future conflict over abortion laws. Since, Roe vs. Wade, there have been a fight between the pro-choice and pro-life groups to pass laws to restrict or protect a right to an abortion. Over the years after Roe vs. Wade the controversy has thickened, and new laws have been passed. Less than seven years later, in 1980 "Harris v McRae declared that the state is not required to fund "medically necessary" abortions for the poor ” (Abortion Timeline). Anyway there were clear restrictions the U.S. state Judiciary Committee believed "that there are no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever [that existed then] in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy". The pro-choice government began to ignore the issues of women restrictions and pretend women had the same freedoms. tThe Supreme Court stated there were no restrictions but more continued and for short periods of time were interrupted by pro-choice laws. In 1983 an "informed consent was not required, waiting periods were shortened and women had right to obtain an abortion and be hospitalized during the second semester" (Abortion Timeline). From then on, pro-life supporters have seemed to overrule most government decisions on abortion. In 2003, the U.S. senate "passed a bill to ban nationwide the practice of partial-birth abortion. Saying that the law does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion" (Abortion Timeline). Abortions are becoming increasingly restricted due to the pro-life government officials not realizing the are taking woman's right to privacy and body. Just in the first quarter of the year 2011, " 15 new laws had been enacted in 7 different states that restrict abortion rights" (Abortion : Outlook). For example in Ohio it became illegal for public hospitals to perform abortions and cut the budget to stop funding for health care plans that allow abortions. In result of the Roe vs. Wade trial and women's revolution to control their own decisons for their bodies, a reaction of the pro-life supporters has grown more powerful and involved in our government, shaping it towards their views. The history of the abortion debate has had such an inconsistent stance in our society. Over the years, and in different states, the issue of abortion has different restrictions due to the many different perspective of the topic. People ’ s views on abortion are based primarily on "religious and moral convictions that play an important role in shaping individuals attitudes" (Abortion and Gender Politics). People view abortion in different perspectives, as an issue on gender equality, the government having too much control over personal decisions, or moral and religious problems. “ The issue of abortion as a women's right issue is rendered more complex than it was originally envisioned" (Abortion Rights). With the issue being so complex, anti-abortion and pro- choice activist have more to conflict about. Recently though anti-abortionist have been successful and "congress and state legislatures have restricted access to abortions with parental notification laws, waiting periods, bans on particular types of procedures and limits on abortion coverage on health plans". Anti- abortionist have been taking little steps to restrict abortion to over time get to their goal, to ban abortion, but abortion rights groups continue to fight for abortion rights.

To overcome this issue correctly, the government should protect the right of an abortion. Instead of restricting a personal choice, the government ’ s role in this should be to create an amendment to forever allow people to make decisions best for them. "Every woman's situation is different, and only you can decide what is best in your case"(planned Parenthood). To ensure everyone has equal rights, the only solution is for a women to chose for herself. All people in America are ensured equal freedom; not letting women make decisions for themselves with the government ’ s interference should be unconstitutional and is discrimination. Congress set up Medicaid to equalize medical services to the poor and rich, but defunding abortion is discrimination against poor women. “ To deny poor women abortion services while paying for childbirth is unfair. It removes reproductive freedom and defies both common sense and humane public policy. Cutting off Medicaid abortion actually increased poverty by trapping mothers of young children in the poverty/welfare cycle ” (National Organization of Women). The government restricting abortions has turned into a discrimination against women who cannot afford them and put them to be deeper in poverty, not benefiting our countries economic crisis. An amendment protecting the right to an abortion, eliminates discrimination and allows everyone to make their own personal decision based on their views about their pregnancy. “ The decision to have an abortion is a personal issue and that the government should not have the authority to dictate what a woman can and cannot do in this matter “ (Gender Politics). With a freedom of choice amendment, women cannot be controlled by others religious or moral values which benefits everyone.

A clear, freedom of chocie amendment that cannot be changed based of off minoritiesview will not only benefit people's beiliefs, but also our future health and government system. With freedom women will find better sources to get safe legal abortions and our government will revolve around what the majority wants, not the few powerful individuals. With abortion restriction not allowing some to obtain them, "many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions" ( National Abortion Federation). In result of restrictions, many women still set out to get abortions but ended up in serious health condition or dieing. For the safety and wants of women, an amendment would assure their are safe places to get an abortion. Also, if the government makes decisions over our bodies, they do not know what is best for everyone which result in a lack health attention and privacy. National Organization for Women's president Terry O'Neill said the law is "devastating" because it creates a bureaucracy that will ultimately lead to private insurance companies stripping away abortion coverage altogether"(The Heart of the Matter). The government decisions should reflect what most people want, and what they want is freedom of choice for abortions . Currently " a majority of Americans agree with the Roe v. Wade decision and support a woman's right to safe and legal abortion care. One in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Yet the current GOP presidential candidates are so out of touch that Mitt Romney supports overturning Roe, Newt Gingrich wants to defund family planning, and Rick Santorum favors a constitutional ban on abortion" (National organization of Women). With such a big decision in the presidential election, closing in on abortion, it is important we pass an amendment that allows the overall population to have laws that suit their health needs and personal interest.

Pro-life supporters beilieve the government should interveneand limit abortion rights because it is harmful to a women’s health. The medical procedure, is mess, painfull, leaves irriversible side effects, has a risk of death and is worsening. Since 1995” the percent of unsafe abortions rose 5%” (ABC News, Unsafe Abortions on the Rise). Even after many years, the issue of unsafe abortions has not been solved. Unsafe abortions are an unsolvable problem unless the government makes it illegal or restricts it. Pro-Life advocates ignore that the reasons abortions are unsafe are due to their government restrictions. In result of the government taking away the right legally, many women have not been able to access affordable or safe abortion clinics, since 1995. According to the World Health Organization just in the “year 2006, “black alley” abortions caused 68,000 maternal deaths in countries where it is not legal”(Pro Con Abortions). The result of government limiting abortion rights it causes more deaths than before. Regulating a person’s right to choice drives people to unsafe abortion, which hurts women's health. Funds and a personal right to choice without government barriers is the safe solution. Abortions will always be in demand, by closing up access to reliable and reasonable clinics, creates a risky path for women. “Access to legal, professionally-preformed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortion” (Pro Con Abortion). Anyway safe abortion has risk” it is important to understand these risk are rare and that some of these are also associated with child birth” (Health Concerns, Abortions). There is always a risk in almost every medical procedure, but with abortion, the government hurts a women’s health with restraining the right.

Opponent also support that an abortion kills and hurts the unborn so should be considered murder and made a government decision. Life is beilived to begin at conception so, an abortion is taking away a life and is immoral and should be illegal. “Life beings at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect life the day after conception” (Respecting Human Life). The unborn have faced serious loss of rights due to abortion. Not only does it end their life, but also it is a painful end. According to Doctor Kanwalijeet Anad, “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe excruciating pain”. For the unborn and pro-life groups, life begins at conception, and to ensure they experience the same rights as any other living person, the government should control and make abortions illegal.

The truth is that an abortion is a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy but does not hurt or kill a human’s life. It is a process to help the mother, but does not hurt anyone so is not murder. “A fetus is not a human being. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Personhood begins at birth” (Pros and Cons of Abortion). Not only is abortion not murder but it does not harm the fetus. According to Doctor Stuart Derbyshire during pregnancy “not only has biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, has also not occurred”. A fetus is a part of the mother till birth making abortion a medical decision for the mother instead of a government decision on life. Abortion does not harm any life so it is a personal decision for a women’s body and not a governments decision.

Lastly opponents beilieve abortion breaks the law in the eyes of god and so immoral. The United States has been built and based upon good christian values which has led us to be successful. If we allow these immoral practices, our success will be ruined. The Bible states that life begins at conception and we shall not kill, so it is against abortion. Going against the values the bible states will bring " dramatic consequences to faith, family and the education system that radically changes the moral fabric of our society" said Pennsylavania Senator, Rick Santorum. If abortion is made legal, it is breaking the basic backbone to our country and will create a corrupt moral shift in our society.

The United States is one of few countries that has always allowed its citizens to practice freedom of religion, and if abortions were taken away based of off, it would be unconsitituional. Freedom of choice is granted in this country but should not be taken away based of off another person's religous views on what other people should do. "The anti-abortion position is usually a religous belief and threatens the vital seperation of church and state. Religous ideology should not be foundaion for law in the United States"( Abortion Pro Con). Our country was founded to ensure epople freedom, so taking away those would go against the backbone of our country. It is corrupt to take away citizens right to choice and religion so the United States should stop restrictions and refund abortion so ensure these. Women’s decisions over reproducing are being taken over by the government more ever since abortion was made legal. Anti- abortion groups have been gaining support from government officials resulting in more restrictions. Just this pass year there have been 70 laws that restrict abortion. These laws keeping women from controlling their decisions for reproduction has led them to black alley abortions and more deaths from across our nation. The government has killed more women from their laws than fetuses. It is immoral to allow living women to die instead of a embryo who does not have a life. Our government is suppose to allow women the have rights over their own body and it is unconstitutional for the government to decide when they reproduce. We needs to vote smart so that the government is incharge of someone who will protect citizens instead of hurt them. To protect women's safety and freedoms abortions should be a personal decision instead of a government decision. Margret Sanger, a women who devoted her life to gaining women freedoms said "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."

"Abortion and Gender politics." // Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society //. ABC-CLIO,2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2012 "Aboriton and Gender Politics" was a secondary journal written for ABC-CLIOS issues section. It was written by Laurie Merium, a professor of history at the Washington state University. This article is about the controversy of abortion and the opposing viewpoints. I used this article to show the involvement of the government in the past and now with abortion and opposing viewpoints.
 * ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY **

// American Civil Liberities Union. "Public Funding for Abortions." // ACLU //. N.p., 21 // // July 2004. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <[|http://www.aclu.org]>. // // Murchison, William. "Pro-Life Obamanistas." Fall 2008. PDF file // // "Pro-Life Obamanistas" is a secondary journal written by William Murchison, a senior editor of Human Life Review. This article is about how Obama originally planned to strongly support pro-choice but has started to send mixed signals by cutting funding and not paying attention to the issue as republican pro-lifers attack it. I took a couple sentences in the article about his opinion of what Obama will do in the future with abortion. //

Bohn, Kevin, and Ashely Killough. "Cain wades into abortion controversy." //CNN//. Turner broadcasting system, 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. <[|http://articles.cnn.com]> This is a secondary source I found on CNN's website and it is an article written by Kevin Bohn and Ashely Killough, both senior producers for CNN political section. The article is about McCain involving himself again in the abortion debate and also other republicans view. I tookk 1-2 sentence on this about pro- lifer's stance.

Halder, Alaka. "Panel debates ethical issues of Abortion." //Dailey Princetonian// (Oct. 2010): n. pag. //The Dailey Princetonian//. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. <[|http://.www.dailyprincetonian.com]>. This is a secondary journal article from the Daily Princetonian, a newspaper created by Princeton University writers. The article is about a meeting Obama had at Notre Dame regarding the abortion controversy and what the people want. I took 4-5 sentences from this article that has information on the different opinions and the current standing point on the issue.

Boonstra, Heather D. "The Heart if the Matter: Public Funding of Abortion for Poor Women in the United States." // Guttmacher Institute //. N.p., Winter 2007. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <[]: // >. // // This Secondary source is a web article written by Heather D. Boonstra, // a Senior Public Policy Associate in the Guttmacher Institute's Washington, DC office and is responsible for promoting the Institute’s sexual and reproductive health agenda in federal law and policy. The source summarizes the Governments current position with funds for abortions. I used this information to support the fact that our government is not funding abortions enough and has led to discrimination.

National Organization for Women. "Reproductive Justice is Every Women's Right." // NOW //. N.p., 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <[] abortion/reproductive_justice.html>. This article is a secondary source i found on the National Organization for Women webpage. NOW is an organization ever since 1966 has been fighting for equality for women and is the largest women activist group. The article is about a woman's right over her own body. I used this to get information on the benefits and reasons of abortion.

// Johnson, Scott P. "Abortion rights." // The Seventies in America //. Ed. John C. Super. 3 vols. Salem Press, 2006. // Salem History // Web. 11 Apr. 2012 // // "Abortion Rights", is a secondary source i found in Salem History ebooks by Scott p. Johnson, a former professor at University of California and studied infant perception and a woman's body development during pregnancy. This article is about the uprise in abortion rights in the United Sates and Canada. I used this to show the revolution of freedom of choice and the reaction of restricted rights. //

// "Obama Administration, New Congress Poised to Push Broad Pro-Abortion Agenda." // National Right to Life News // Jan. 2009, natl ed.: 1, 16, 17. PDF file. // // The article "Obama Administration, New Congress Poised to push Broad Pro-Abortion Agenda" is a secondary source from the newspaper National Right to Life News. The Nation Right to Life News is a national newspaper organized by anti-abortianist in Washington D.C. The news article is about Obama's decision to cut federal funding for abortion and is ignoring the issue. I used the source for 1 or 2 sentences about the facts of our government's past beliefs of abortion //

// Merriman, Scott A. "Roe v. Wade." // The Seventies in America //. Ed. John C. Super. 3 vols. Salem Press, 2006. // Salem History // Web. 11 Apr. 2012. // // "Roe vs. Wade" is a secondary article i found in the Salem history books written by Scott A. Merriman,a professor of history at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, and teaches online for the University of Maryland University College and the American Public University System. His published works include ABC-CLIO's // Religion and the Law in America: An Encyclopedia of Personal Belief and Public Policy //, // History Highway. This piece is about the start of the freedom of choice revolution for women, specifically, the Roe v, Wade case. I used this piece for background information.

National Abortion Federation. "Public Funding For Abortion." // NAF //. N.p., 2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <[]> "Public Funding for Abortions" is a secondary source i found on the website of the Nation Abortion Federation,a professional association of abortion providers in North America. They believe, as the stated in the article, that women and people have a right to make a decision over their own body. I used this to support my idea that the government should back of on restricting women from making decisions for themselves.

Planned Parenthood. "Thinking About Abortion." //Planned Parenthood//. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. . "Thinking About Abortion" is a article i found on Planned Parenthood to inform people about abortion, the risk and benefits. Planned Parenthood of America is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate. They have been wokring for 90 years to improve a reproductive health and safety. I used this article to help support that a decision on abortion is different for each individual and should be a personal decision.

//" //Roe v. Wade //(1973)." //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #121917; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,'sans serif'; vertical-align: baseline;">Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #121917; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,'sans serif';">. ABC-CLIO, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #121917; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,'sans serif';"> 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. "Roe v. Wade(1973)" is a secondary source i found on the database Issues: Understanding controversy and Society on ABC-CLIO. It was written by Laurie Mercier, who wrote on the Social History of the United States of the 1970s and is a professor of History at Washington State University. The article summarizes the Roe v, Wade case in 1973 which i used to explain the background and history of the the revolution of freedom of choice.