Introduction
Abortion is one of the most controversial topics in the US. This issue is highly discussed among Americans who have polarized their opinions on whether abortion should be a right for every woman or whether there should be legal restrictions on this practice. Pro-life group advocates for the assert that abortion should be restricted to safeguard the rights of the unborn children while pro-choice group members declare that women should be able to make independent decisions on whether to keep or terminate their pregnancies. Over the last four decades, public policy has mostly been in support of pro-choice ideas. Many pro-choice activists regard the 1973 Roe V Wade decision as to the most significant point in the US abortion discourse.
This decision removed most of the legal obstacles to abortion, and it led to the dramatic increase in the availability of safe abortion services in the US. Americans are today more supportive of abortion rights for women than at any other time in history. However, the support is not unanimous, and there are still strong reservations about the pro-choice stance by many people. A Gallup survey conducted in 2012 indicated that while about 75% of Americans think that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, only 41% identified themselves as pro-choice (Pickert, 2013). It indicates that a large number of Americans still support some abortion restrictions.
A troubling trend in the recent past has been the imposition of restrictions on abortion by some states. Over the last five years, many states have experienced a rise in the amount of legislation, proposed or passed, designed to restrict the reproductive choices of women and their ability to make abortions. Such legislation infringes on the rights of the woman to have full control of her reproductive health. One state that has enjoyed progressive abortion reforms even as most states pass restrictive laws is California. This paper will set out to highlight why women should be granted the right to abortion in the US, and the paper will proceed to show the relative advantages that Californian women have due to the existence of less restrictive abortion laws in the state.
Why Women Should Have Every Right to Abortion
While abortion is legal in the US and most of the legal obstacles that existed before 1970 have been removed, there are still restrictions that create enormous barriers to abortion access. Removal of these barriers would lead to more rights for women in the US, which will bring several positive outcomes.
Cost Reduction
An increase in abortion rights is likely to decrease the cost for an abortion making it affordable. While clinical abortion is legal in the US, the cost of it is still restrictive, especially for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In spite of the huge demand for abortion, providers charge high fees since they do not receive federal funding. Calhoun (2012) notes that due to the Hyde Amendment of 1976, most types of federal funding for abortion are banned making the procedure an expensive service. Ziegler (2013) confirms that since the passage of the Hyde Amendment, many organizations that provide or advocate for abortion could not benefit from Medicaid or Title X funds. Women who want abortion services have to pay a high price for them. This had made it increasingly difficult for women, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, to obtain abortions. An increase in abortion rights will lead to greater integration of abortion into primary care. This will require the government to support some of the abortion services leading to reduced fees.
Prevent Illegal Abortions
The lack of abortion rights causes the prevalence of illegal abortions, which can be harmful to woman. Historically, a high number of illegal abortions were as a result of the lack of abortion rights. These illegal operations were performed in unsafe environments or without the help of professionals, and they led to detrimental health effects on the women and even death in extreme cases. Calhoun (2012) confirms that up to the 1970s, there were numerous cases of women being hospitalized due to septic abortions incurred as they attempted to terminate pregnancies on their own. The steps taken to decriminalize abortion in 1970th made it possible for women to access abortion clinics. Due to the legalization in 1970, abortion-related deaths in the US fell by 98% within a decade (Schoen, 2013). This was arguably the greatest positive contribution to decriminalizing abortions in the US.
However, current laws are being enacted to limit the extent to which women can make use of available abortion services. Calhoun (2012) reports that there some states that have passed laws aimed at liming access to abortion drugs by women. States such as Wisconsin have put in place policies that make doctors liable to criminal penalties if they perform abortions without fulfilling some preliminary activities, such as interviewing the patient. In Iowa, there is a regulation that requires physicians to physically meet with a pregnant woman before they can prescribe abortion pills. Such policies have led to an increase in the number of women who are purchasing and using abortion drugs without medical guidance. The use of abortion drugs without medical advice is likely to cause complications.
Empower Disadvantaged Women
Abortion services enable women from disadvantaged communities to deal with unintended pregnancies, which plays an active role in their life outcomes. While the proportion of unintended pregnancies is high for all women in the US, this phenomenon is the highest among Blacks, Hispanics, and women with lower socioeconomic statuses. The importance of abortion services to women from disadvantaged communities can be seen from the great disparity in abortion rates among US women. Women of lower socioeconomic status and women of color have higher rates of abortion than women enjoying higher socioeconomic status and White women do. Dehlendorf Harris, and Weitz report that the abortion rate in 2008 was1.2% for non-Hispanic White women, 2.9% for Hispanic women and 4% for non-Hispanic Black women. At the same period, the prevalence in abortion was 0.9% for women of average to high socioeconomic status compared to 5.2% for women with low socioeconomic status.
Most low-income women choose to have an abortion after making candid assessments of the economic and social realities into which their child will be born into (Dehlendorf et al., 2013). Intervention efforts to stop the occurrence of unintended pregnancies should be given priority by the government and health care providers. However, once a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, the best thing would be to ensure that she has access to high quality and timely women reproductive health services.
Ease of Access
Having more abortion rights will ensure that women do not face the barriers that lead to delays in obtaining abortion care. Abortion procedures are safer if they are carried out as early as possible, which is within the first trimester. Research has shown that most women would prefer obtaining their abortions early. However, many women face difficulties finding abortion service providers in their counties. In addition to this, abortion services are not accessible to most low-income and women from minority groups who rely on public health departments or community health centers that do not provide abortions. This leads to delayed in care leading to women undergoing abortion in the later stages. Efforts to restrict abortion will only have the negative consequence of increasing the number of women who experience late abortions or have unintended childbirth (Dehlendorf et al., 2013).
Equitability of Services
An increase in rights will lead to the more equitable distribution of abortion facilities in all states. As it currently stands, most abortion providers are concentrated in urban regions. This is in spite of the fact that up to 35% of the women who need abortions does not reside in urban areas (Yanow, 2013). In spite of having a large number of abortion providers compare do other states, California still suffers from an inequitable distribution of facilities. Weitz (2013) notes that more than half of the 58 counties in California lack a facility that provides 400 or more abortions. Increasing women’s rights to abortions will lead to an integration of abortion into primary care. This will ensure greater access to abortion services since public health departments and community health centers, which are available in all counties, will provide this healthcare service.
Benefits Californian Women have Compared to Rest of the Country
Women in California enjoy several significant advantages compared to women in the rest of the country. To begin with, California has witnessed significant progress in increasing abortion rights for women. In 2013, the State enacted a bill that allowed a wider range of non-physician practitioners such as nurses, physician assistants, and midwives to carry out abortion services. Expanding the number of providers offering early abortion care is integral to ensuring that the pro-choice objective of providing abortion services to all women who need it is achieved. As it currently stands, the number of physicians available in the health care system is low.
Hwang Atsuko, Taylor, Henderson, and Suellen (2011) reveal that non-physician clinicians play an important role as providers of health care. These professionals can competently perform complex medical procedures and provide high-quality care. Professional organizations recognize that this group of non-physician practitioners is technically qualified and appropriate to provide abortion care (Hwang et al., 2011). The Californian bill allowing the non-physician clinicians to perform abortions is, therefore, a positive move that increases access to abortion services by women in the state.
The legalization of abortion does not lead to a positive outcome if it is not accompanied by the presence of a reasonable number of abortion providers. For most parts of the country, there has been a decline in the number of abortion providers over the years. Jones and Kooistra (2011) document that while there were 2900 abortion facilities in the year 1982; the number had fallen to 1800 by 2005. This meant that 87% of counties in the US lacked an abortion provider. This decline in the number such specialists have occurred as the demand for abortion services in the US has increased.
Jones and Kooistra (2001) document that according to a Census from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, the number and rate of abortions increased by 3% between 2006 and 2009. One issue that has led to a decline in the number of abortion providers is the problem of antiabortion harassment. Most providers are keen to avoid areas where there are strong anti-abortion movements. In the past, anti-abortion protesters have been known to disrupt the activities of abortion providers through acts of violence. Jones and Kooistra (2011) state that “extreme acts of violence against abortion providers have led to declines in the number of providers in some areas” (p.43).
In addition to this, stigmatization affects the decision of doctors to practice abortion. Doctors in many states fail to provide the service due to the stigma and ideological contention that surrounds this issue. California provides a safe and conducive environment for such specialists since the majority of the population holds liberal views concerning abortion. Due to the pro-choice values adopted by the State, Californian health care providers can offer abortions without fear of violence or stigmatization. Due to this positive environment, California has the highest number of providers and the highest number of abortions. The state accounted for 18% of the nation’s abortions in 2010 (Jones & Kooistra, 2011).
California women benefit from the lack of laws that are meant to ban certain types of abortions, such as sex-selective abortions. Research indicates that the decision to abort by some women is informed by the predicted sex of the baby. Anti-abortion activists in many states have engaged in campaign efforts to enforce bans on sex-selective abortion. As of 2013, four states already enforced such bans and other states were considering them. These bans criminalize the act of performing an abortion based on the sex or gender of the child and medical practitioners who assist such women are liable to criminal penalties. Advocates of such laws claim that they help prevent the discriminative abortion of female fetus by many women.
While such laws appear to have some positive motivation, they are detrimental to the abortion rights of women. Under the federal Prenatal Discrimination Act (PRENDA), abortion providers are legally obligated to interrogate women about their reasons for choosing an abortion. Ziegler (2013) states that this makes an already stressful experience even more traumatic for the woman. In addition to this, PRENDA would require abortion providers to deny services to women whose reasons appear to be “suspect.” Since there is no guideline as to what constitutes “suspect” reasons, this law is likely to lead to the denial of abortion services based on the biases of the provider.
Californian women are not subjected to pre-abortion protocols that prevent women in other counties from accessing abortion in an easy and timely manner. Most states should follow the legislation that restricts the rights of women to access abortion. Natavio (2013) documents that women who seek abortions in most states are subjected to 24-hour waiting periods. In addition to this, there is a mandatory ultrasound viewing and politically motivated medical counseling for the woman. These pre-abortion protocols lead to delays and dissuade women from seeking abortion services. Lack of such hindrances in California has led to more accessibility to abortion by women.
Another significant advantage that Californian women enjoy is that they benefit from government funds for reproductive health services, including abortion. The government plays a major part in the dispensary of health care services to the population. The impact of federal assistance, especially on low-income and uninsured population groups is great. As this paper has pointed out, there exist prohibitions to using federal funds for abortion services. Individual states come up with their policies to determine if abortion coverage can be provided by public insurance policies. Many states have enacted laws that restrict abortion coverage using public funds. California stands out as one of the few states that use state Medicaid funds to cover abortion costs (Natavio, 2013). In addition to this, there is a trend towards expanding access to abortion services using public funds.
Discussion
The current restrictive laws to abortion are driven by ideologies instead of the scientific facts concerning the importance of abortion. The fact is that abortion is an important service for many women in the US. Statistics indicate that approximately 1.2 million women from all over the US obtain legal abortions every year. Yanow (2013) reveals that one in three women in the US will probably have an abortion by the time she reaches the age of 45. Yanow (2013) also argues that the increase in women’s rights to abortion does not create or change the need for it. The increase simply makes abortion more accessible to women, therefore ensuring that death from unsafe abortion is mitigated or completely prevented.
The lack of unanimous support from pro-choice by a majority of Americans is from the misconception of what pro-choicers endorse. There is a widespread assumption that pro-choice members seek to promote the extensive use of abortion services by all women. This assumption is wrong since the goal of pro-choicers is not to promote the increase in the number of abortions carried out by women. Ziegler (2013) asserts, “Most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion; they would much prefer prevention of unplanned pregnancy and support for pregnant women so that no woman feels that abortion is her only choice” (p.262). However, abortion services must be readily available for women who choose to terminate their pregnancies.
Conclusion
This paper has argued that women should have every right to abortion in the US. It began by noting that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s led to monumental positive results in women’s reproductive health. However, the paper has observed that there is a current trend towards adopting restrictive laws concerning abortion. These laws reduce access to abortion services by women and increase the likelihood of women having illegal abortions or having abortions at later gestations. The paper has recognized California as one of the states with the most progressive abortion policies in the US. These policies have led to many positive outcomes for Californian women. While Californian women enjoy the benefits of safe and legal abortion, there is still a significant challenge on the issue of accessibility. Until all women are not able to access affordable, safe, and legal abortion services, the woman’s right to abortion must continue to be supported.
References
Calhoun, A. (2012). The Rise of DIY Abortions. New Republic, 243(20), 14-17.
Dehlendorf, C., Harris, L., & Weitz, T. (2013). Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach. American Journal of Public Health, 103(10), 1772-1779.
Hwang, A., Atsuko, K., Taylor, D., Henderson, J., & Suellen, M. (2011). Advanced Practice Clinicians’ Interest in Providing Medical Abortion: Results of a California Survey. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 37(2), 92-97.
Jones, R., & Kooistra, K. (2011). Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 43(1), 41-50.
Natavio, M.F. (2013). The Provision of Comprehensive Reproductive Health Services in Los Angeles: A Physician’s Perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 103(4), 596-598.
Schoen, J. (2013). Living Through Some Giant Change: The Establishment of Abortion Services. American Journal of Public Health, 103(3), 416-425.
Weitz, T.A. (2013). Safety of Aspiration Abortion Performed by Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants Under a California Legal Waiver. American Journal of Public Health, 103(3), 454-461.
Yanow, S. (2013). It Is Time to Integrate Abortion Into Primary Care. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), 14-16.
Ziegler, M. (2013). Women’s Rights on the Right: The History and Stakes of Modern Pro-Life Feminism. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 28(2) 232-268.