|
Steady erosion of Roe vs Wade |
|
|
|
|
Written by Reyne
|
|
Apr 01, 2006 at 11:40 AM |
An end to abortion? A woman's right to choose is steadily being compromised in states across the US. At this rate, a Supreme Court decision to end Roe vs. Wade will have little consequence in most of the states.
Several states have signed legislation that is chipping away at abortion rights, an ominous sign for pro-choice supporters. In the most extreme case, South Dakota's governor signed legislation that forbids every type of abortion except those that are necessary to save a woman's life.1 That means women are forced to carry out pregnancies that are even results of rape or incest. In seven other states (KY, MS, ND, NM, TN, VA, WV), proposals for constitutional amendments to remove any state and/or federal protection for abortion have been issued. Eighteen states also enacted less obvious deterrents to abortion, bills that require 24 hour waiting periods and biased counseling.2
Most liberals would like to write off people like South Dakota's governor, Mike Rounds, as a stupid, red neck, conservative, but that's just wishful thinking. The conservatives are gaining precious ground. Mr. Rounds, for example, might be a far cry from anything resembling real intelligence, but he is taking a step closer to the Republican dream without taking much of a risk. South Dakota is quite conservative with only one major abortion clinic, so it's unlikely this legislation would make him less popular in his state. He could very well be the catalyst that brings the case back to the Supreme Court. With a more conservative Supreme Court, that could mean disaster for Roe vs. Wade.
Mr. Rounds said in a statement, "In the history of the world, the true test of civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society... abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society."1 It's probably true that one of the tests of civilization is how well people treat the weak in society. In that case, the Republicans should focus on other weak members of society. How about those poor women who are victims of rape or incest and are forced to carry out pregnancies that are products of vile, repugnant unions that will leave them emotionally scarred? Or, what about a teenager who made one mistake? For that one mistake, a young woman will become a mother before she has even learned to care for herself. For that one mistake, a young man can be burdened with child support at an age when he should be worried about getting into college. We should care about the living, not about a bunch of cells that has yet to form independent life. Of course, a religious argument can be used, but religious arguments have also been used for Intelligent Design, which is laughable. So, let's be reasonable and not bring religion into it. Religion is all fine and good for personal use, but enforcing a religious belief on an entire population is plainly wrong. People should personally be allowed to decide if abortion is right for them.
Outside of South Dakota, more subversive attacks are being made on abortion rights. Many states have enacted laws that require women to wait 24 hours after visiting an abortion clinic before they are able to obtain the abortion. The requirement for a 24-hour wait period is especially inconvenient for women with lower income.3 They often have to take additional time away from work or arrange for the care of their children when they are away. Since over 50% of women who obtain abortions are from lower income situations, the wait period is a significant and unfair abortion deterrent for those who need help the most.4 Furthermore, many of these states force women to read literature, watch videos, and/or receive counseling based on the information provided by the state. States often include false facts such as the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Such a link has not been proven in medical research.2
It's touching that the Republicans are concerned about passing the tests of civilization. Here's another test. Certainly one of the true and challenging tests of civilization is how a society makes wise decisions that benefit the whole without sacrificing the freedoms of the individual. Will an abortion ban benefit society, or will it serve to satisfy the egomania of conservatives? Over 50% of the women who need abortion are those with lower income, so they obviously cannot financially handle being pregnant. If they are forced to see the pregnancy through to the end, these women can face severe problems. The pregnancy itself will cut time away from work, making it difficult for these women to support themselves or their families. Lower income jobs rarely grant maternity leave, so these women can even face losing their jobs. Anti-choice supporters will say that adoption is a solution to this problem, but there are more children entering into foster care, waiting for adoption, than those leaving.5 Putting more children into the adoption system increases burden on the states. You would have to be thoughtlessly self-righteous or completely dim to believe that banning abortion would be advantageous to society.
It's imperative for a woman to have the right to choose what is right for her. Politicians and the religious belief of others should not be the deciding factors. Abortion is a choice that can only be made by the woman herself. She may consult a doctor, a priest, her family, or whomever she chooses. The important thing is that she gets to choose.
Further Reading 1 South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions. (2006). CNN, Retrieved Mar 7, 2006 2 Reproductive choice in the states in 2005. Retrieved Mar 8, 2006 3 Finer, L. B., Henshaw, S. K. (2003). Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(1), 6-15. 4 Jones, R. K., Darroch, J. E., & Henshaw S. K. (2002). Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(5), 226-235. 5 Foster care : Numbers and Trends. (2005). Retrieved Mar. 8, 2006, from Foster Care National Statistics Web site
|
|
Science Sunday 