Thursday, October 16, 2014
Supreme Court Rules Against Increased Restrictions on Abortion
In Texas, there has been an attempt by the local politicians to create laws that severely crack down on abortion clinics. Last November, Texas had restrictions set on abortion clinics that some considered unreasonable, but were never challenged by the Supreme Court. Now, though, with the addition of two laws that would limit the number of clinics to a measly eight, the Supreme Court is finally coming into play. Their rejection of Texas' restrictions relieved supporters of reproductive rights and showed Texas that their laws have limits and have to face the highest court if they're exceeded. Now there's a question as to where the line is as to when the Supreme Court can rightfully deny laws that claim to "protect women's health".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am glad the Supreme Court has decided to intervene on subjects like this and same-sex marriage. Howevee, I fear that the ruling has come too late considering that most of the clinics shut down in Texas are "not likely to reopen". Which leaves thousands of women more than a hundred miles from the nearest abortion provider. This concerns me because if a woman cannot afford to have a baby, how is she going to be able to afford travelling 150 miles to get rid of said baby? Maybe she won't. This is problem because abortions not performed at abortion clinics are illegal and unsafe. Banning abortion will not stop abortions from happening. It will make abortions exponentially more dangerous
ReplyDeleteI agree with Becky. Being a woman, I would like to have the comfort of knowing that abortion is an option. Many excepting mothers do not have the funds to raise a child and give it the best possible life that every parent would want for their child. Each mom should be able to know that she can get an abortion if she knows that she can not provide for the child. By only having abortion clinics in the metropolitan areas, it isn't accessible for many who do not live in the cities. I believe that women should be able to make having an abortion their choice. I don't think that the federal government should control what you can and what you can not do.
ReplyDeleteI am prochoice so this ruling is in my opinion great although it did come at the wrong time. Women should have the right to at least chose. If you don't want an abortion then don't get one but let others do what they want. I am glad the Supreme Court got involved. It shouldn't be up to the public and this may be a bit drastic for some people but I don't believe it should be up to men whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Yes you can argue that it isn't fair because it is the man's child too. In the end though it is still the woman's body and she should have control over it.
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled this. I was furious when I heard about the decisions Texas made in November. It seems obvious how their reasons for shutting down so many clinics were a disguise to infringe on others' reproductive rights. Less abortion clinics will not equal less abortions; as Becky said, it leads to more unsafe abortions and more women with children that they can't take care of-- children more prone to poverty, abuse, and neglect. I'm happy the Supreme Court intervened to protect women who want abortions.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can understand and sympatheize with the Pro-Life viewpoint on this issue. Abortion is a serious matter, and should be considered a last resort option. After all, I'm pretty sure no one is Pro-Abortion. However, I completely agree with what Becky said: banning abortion isn't going to stop abortion. Women from low income families may feel they have no other choice, especially since putting a child up for adoption does not guarantee that they will end up in a better home. Also, some women may be victims of rape or sexual assualt, and want an abortion so as to not have their rapist's baby. Reffering to Alexa's other article, the government much too long to enact a bill to provide for children from low icome families. So, isn't it a bit contradictory to insist women with low incomes have children that they cannot provide for, then prevent these children access to the money and care they need?
ReplyDeleteThis article pointed out to me how significant the power of words is. After all, the phrase "women's health" got the restrictions quite far for a while there; nobody wants to say they oppose measures taken in the name of women's health. I agree with Nia in basically everything that she said. I don't personally see how a person's choice should trump a person's life, BUT, if less abortions are to be had, then America needs better sex education, more accessible protection, improved systems for newborn children whose parents can't care for them, less judgmental culture for when women get pregnant and still hold a job, etc.
ReplyDeleteImposing restrictions on an already-existing system like abortion only hurts women's health and puts people in dangerous situations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I respect and understand the viewpoint of people who chose to be prochoice, that is not the choice that I have made. I do not think that anyone should ever have the right to end the life of another. Our government funds programs to support families who struggle to support their children such as welfare, food stamps, and Obama Care; however, this government is not passing a bill that would allow assistance for needy families so this makes that a little more tricky. Ultimately I am not happy that the Supreme Court intervened when the abortion clinics were shutting down becuase I do not believe that a women should have the right to end the life of her unborn, but alive nontheless, fetus. The body that is most affected by the abortion is not hers, it is that of the unborn baby. A separate life.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand the viewpoint of someone who takes a pro life stances; however, I personally am pro choice for all reproductive rights of women. Abortions are a matter of an individual's choice, not a governments choice. I agree with Becky on the stance that abortions will happen whether or not there legal, but we do have the choice on whether they will be safe or unsafe. Many of these clinics also provide a range of health services such as Breast cancer screenings, birth control, and information (not just abortions) for women of lower income levels. I think Mackenzie's plan of redirecting funds to programs such as welfare and food stamps is a bit unrealistic. Yes, they would help lower income families, but I do not believe this would even make a dent in the amount of families living below the poverty line. Overall I am happy with the more open minded court ruling.
ReplyDeleteI think the point that Becky made was an important one: just because abortion clinics get shut down, it doesn't mean that abortions will. Personally, I am pro-choice, but I do completely understand the views of those who are pro-life. If a woman in going to have an abortion, I think it is not only her chpice, but she has the right to be safe. If women are forced to have abortions elsewhere, there is great risk of more than just the life of the fetus being lost.
ReplyDeleteI think it's awesome that the Supreme Court decided to step in on Texas' decision. A woman has the absolute right to choose what happens on or inside her body. The government should have zero say on those matters. Religious groups the attempt to sway the politicians into voting pro-life are disgusting, especially when they believe that even rape victims should not have rather right to an abortion. If a woman wants or needs an abortion, she should have the right to that without any questions asked.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court's decision regarding this issue. I believe that the woman who is having the child should have the right to decide on an abortion. Though the baby is a separate life, it also affects the woman's life. In my opinion, I believe that the woman's choice should get precedence over the unborn fetus.I do not believe that the government should be interfering in this matter by imposing restrictions on abortions and I do not believe that we should put abortion on the same level as murder.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am happy to see the Supreme Court step in and put a stop to Texas' politicians who were trying to get rid of all abortion clinics. I would have liked to see the Supreme Court get involved a bit sooner. Although clinics are likely to go up from eight to twenty, the number of clinics may never reach forty-one again like they were before the law. So now this leaves over 900,000 women able to have children over 150 miles from the nearest clinic. In my opinion this is ridiculous; women should have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies. The government should not even be placing restrictions or getting involved in the issue of abortion.
ReplyDeleteI think that education should be at the root of this whole situation. I have gone through a program marketed by the UUA called OWL (our whole lives) which starts from kindergarten learning about sex and reproduction up until 8th grade. This education helps people understand the responsibilities of sex and having a child and ways that you can prevent that. Still, abortion is going to happen and that opportunity should exist. But we can mediate the effects and needs of having an abortion if we just learn a bit.
ReplyDeleteThose of you claiming that the government has no right to "tell women what to do with their bodies" seem to be forgetting the single, fundamental right that takes precedence over all others. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men...are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among (which) are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The government has the obligation to protect the right to life of all of its citizens, even if they're not born yet. If it weren't for the abhorrent Roe v. Wade decision, it clearly would be within the government's designated sphere of influence to tell women that they can't terminate their unborn child, which would obviously infringe on its basic human right. When a baby is developing inside of its mother's body, it is not part of her body, it is its own, independent life form with its own unique DNA. Just because a baby in the womb does not have the capacity to make its own choice regarding life does not mean its interests should be disregarded. Abortions should only be legal in situations of rape, or incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Most pro-lifers agree on these exceptions, so demonizing them is tasteless and out of place. If we want to protect women's health, we should be considering steps such as the constructive ones proposed by Kellen and Jaime, in order to curb the number of abortions necessary.
ReplyDeleteA baby is a part of a woman's body. In case you didn't know babies spend 9 months in a woman's body. Why do you think pregnant women can't smoke or drink during their pregnancy? A woman is not just hanging out while the baby is developing; every day of her life is affected unlike a man's. I know it's hard for you to relate but please keep in mind the huge effect a pregnancy has on a woman.
DeleteI think it's apparent that most people who have taken the pro choice stance on abortion rights respect the personal decision and opinions of those who advocate for pro choice. However, these are personal, individual decisions that a woman, not a government, must make for herself. The fact is that Roe v. Wade is the law in the United States.These are not easy decisions to make, and women do not take it lightly. There are so many circumstances that may force a woman to end a pregnancy. Along with education, contraception should be made affordable and accessible through organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
DeleteYes, I understand how human reproductive biology works. However, no person should have the legal right to end the life of another individual, which is exactly what abortion does. I think we agree that there are certain areas of people's lives that the government has no business involving itself in. However, assuming you have adopted the typical liberal stance on the political spectrum, you seem to have a warped sense of what these areas are and what they are not. I advocate for limited government as much as anyone, but one of the few functions the government does legitimately have is protecting the natural rights of its citizens, the first of which is the right to life. The Roe v. Wade decision was made in 1973. Since then, biological science has advanced tremendously, producing evidence that a baby exists independent of the mother while it is growing inside the womb, which, by definition, makes it separate from her body. I'm not trying to diminish the significant impact of pregnancy on women's lives, I'm simply asserting the rights of those who do not have the capacity to assert them for themselves.
DeleteViability (the ability for a fetus to live outside the womb) happens 24 weeks into the gestation period. You can't legally have an abortion outside of this time frame. Your archaic opinion has left you resistant to scientific fact. Under no circumstances could the fetus, "exist independent of the mother" within the statue of legal abortion (as is set by Roe vs. Wade).
DeleteYou're right; I should have used more precise language. When I refer to "existing independent of the mother," I do not mean physically living outside the womb unassisted. Let me rephrase to "existing as an individual life form that has its own unique DNA." This should clarify the fact that it is not a physical "part" of the woman's body, as a limb or internal organ is.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete