Abortion has been a contentious issue in the American society. The society has been controlling fertility using abortion irrespective of its legality. The United States legalised this practice before 1880; afterwards, it was banned in most states but only allowed when a woman’s life was to be saved or in case a woman’s life was in danger.
Traditionally, women practiced abortion amid public support and no court conviction (Libertarianism). Notably, during this time even the Church did not lead a repression against this act. Before the 19th century, women could assist each other in the abortion process.
Women healers in US openly trained other women to abort without judicial interventions. The US government has overtime remained in focus on abortion issues. Historical court rulings reveal the divisions that have existed in the US on the topic of abortion. The government has been changing positions on this issue with numerous amendments. This has been due to the differences in opinion between the Democrats and Republicans on abortion.
In the early 1800, there was no law touching on abortion for women, it was not easy for them to refuse to go along with abortion practices hence eliminating the need for it (Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union).
The US government has ensured that women experiencing inferior abortions and affected by abdominal infections are treated in the emergency wards that were established in some of their hospitals. Markedly, the doctors were the ones allowed to perform this process. If abortion was to be done to a young female, the doctors were to inform their parents before carrying out this operation. This information was to remove any liability from the doctor in case of any risk that can arise like death of the young female.
In 1973, in a case between Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman should be the one to decide when to have an abortion. This Amendment Concept of Human Liberty was considered as a right of privacy. In Roe versus Wade, the term ‘right of privacy’ was viewed as broad to include whether a woman opts to abort or not.
Notably, this ruling legalised abortion in the US. During this time, the government initiative that supports health care, Medicaid, offered funding to women who wanted to stop pregnancy. The land-mark ruling by the Supreme Court made women have the legal right to abortion.
This ruling ensured that the women’s rights were entrenched in the constitution. Therefore, barriers of whichever nature to abortion were deemed to be unconstitutional at this point. It is clear that the government was not able to determine out rightly when life begins.
The Texas and Georgia court rulings left a key question on whether a foetus has right to life or not. Obviously, the rulings had little concern for the life of the unborn babies; therefore, presuming that life begins at the start of the third trimester and not necessarily at conception. The third trimester is a period between the 7th and the 9th month of pregnancy.
Therefore, the government removed all restrictions that were on abortion between conception and the sixth month. In Doe versus Bolton’s case in Georgia, Justice Harry Blackmun ruled that the life of a mother encompasses her emotional, physical, psychological and family well-being. This ruling also gave room for abortion even at the 3rd trimester since a woman’s health was given more priority than the life of the foetus.
Conversely, in 1977 the federal government offered to limit Medicaid funding to support abortion. By 1981, the government no longer allowed all the above exceptions. Overtime, abortion raised different opinions. This continuity led to reacceptance of the three exceptions.
Currently, the Hyde amendment has all the three exceptions as the only reasons that can make one carry out abortion. Markedly, the ban on Medicaid for funding abortion significantly affects low income females. Civil discussion came to an agreement that a pregnant woman and her doctor have a legal right to whether to abort or not and only if her health is in danger that she is forced to terminate the pregnancy.
The US government started to fund trimester abortions to help poor pregnant women whose health were in danger. The government also required parents to be involved in case their children are involved in abortion practices.
They were to be informed by the doctors verbally or in writing, failure of which penalties are to follow. In Thornburg versus American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of 1986, the Supreme Court changed that the 3rd trimester abortions should take into concern the life of the child in preference to the mother’s life.
In addition, women were to be trained on prenatal development, educated on abortion alternatives and informed on risks that accompany abortion. Citizens began to avoid abortion practices although the abortion law remained in force. Most states began restricting abortion by instituting legislative measures following the 1986 court ruling. The year 1989 marked a drastic shift from the earlier rulings on when life begins.
In Webster versus Reproductive Health Services, the court declared that life begins at conception and that the federal government has no interest on the development of the foetus during pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood versus Casey case of 1992, the court ruled that when performing an abortion, 24 hours waiting period should be given to the victim. This was meant to prepare the woman psychologically hence have a full consent of abortion.
The Hyde amendment having restricted funding abortion placed low income women at risk since they could take a lot of time struggling to meet the cost of abortion. These women even lacked insurance covers on abortion. These women could even opt to receive support from untrained practitioners, which is always unsafe and illegal. This amendment denies women abortion services even in case of serious mental or health problems.
The differences in earning levels of American women show marginalization that the amendment has entrenched. It denied poor women basic reproductive health care. Others are of the view that the amendment has infringed on the right of the womenfolk. However, they could get funds during the late stages of pregnancy which is always accompanied by high health risks.
In 2000, the US government rejected partial birth control because it did not protect the life of a pregnant woman. The life of a pregnant woman was to be considered and be protected (History of Abortion). The government highly supported the use of contraceptives.
The US government encouraged women to use them to prevent the unplanned pregnancies. In case of full term pregnancy or rape, federal medical funds were expelled to pay for abortion, but only if the woman’s health was at risk. This initiative saw 17 states in the US pay for abortions of underprivileged women as others were paid by public funds.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 passed legislation that a doctor found performing a partial birth control was to be imprisoned for two years while a woman undergoing the procedure was not be prosecuted with an indemnity to save her life. In addition, charges against the mother or the doctor should be introverted as it was considered as a way of prohibiting abortion.
Life was considered to begin at conception. The senate in 2011 removed abortion coverage for women who were raped in the military as they argued that the military are pro-life (History of Abortion). However, abortion coverage still remained in force for civilians who were employed by the federal and state governments. Nevertheless, Pentagon funds were used to cover the abortion procedure in cases where a mother’s life was in danger.
Federal tax dollars were kept in separate domestic accounts as per the US government; this was to take care of abortion cases. Those with unlimited options had to pay at least $1per month to help in supporting them in case of abortion (Torre). According to this law, any person interested in signing for the public option, a federally administered programme, paid for abortion treatment.
According to Vice President Joe Biden, life begins at conception; therefore, abortion process stops the life of an innocent soul. This is also in line with the church teachings. He ensured that the government took an initiative to illegalise abortion unless under certain circumstances.
The government ensured public justice by protecting the primary life-giving of its people and offering supportive conditions in nurturing children, in the society. In case of unplanned pregnancies, the government had to take corrective measures to prevent reoccurrence of the problem rather than promoting abortion on the basis of individual sovereignty.
Additionally, the government ensured that families took the responsibility of bringing up their children. The US government instituted counselling services on health of both the child and the mother, pregnancy and adoption services hence minimising abortion practices. Massive counselling on the impacts of abortion reduced abortion rate tremendously. This idea has been acknowledged by religions especially the Catholic Church which believes that life begins at conception.
They were at the frontline in offering pregnancy counselling on impacts of abortion to women (History of Abortion). The Church believed that abortion was an act against the will of God. According to the Church, life begins at conception; therefore, any attempt to carry out abortion at any point of pregnancy contravenes the will of God. In addition, the Church held that the act was also contravening human beings right to life.
A few citizens in the US came out to oppose the government funding on abortion. However, when asked to give reasons for their opposition, only 3% supported funding of abortion while 8% said that there was a possibility that the government is spending a lot of money towards abortion. However, the US government held that they were only supporting reforms on abortion.
The government has gone ahead to establish emergency wards in some hospitals just to ensure that the life of a mother undergoing abortion illegally is saved. The Pew Research of 2009 showed that 42% support the idea but around 38% proposals oppose it (Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition).
An inclusion of this policy supporting funding of abortion will encourage women to engage in abortion practices. Nonetheless, only 28% of the proposals wanted it be included thus causing division during the health care debate.
As 42% of the citizens wanted abortion to be covered with government benefit, 49% were of the contrary idea. The US government has tried to illegalise abortion since the majority of its citizens has agreed that it should be allowed when the life of the pregnant mother is in danger (Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition).
Opposition of healthcare reforms was turned down even before the house passed its report. Although these debates took place, some US citizens still remained undecided about the proposals. Nevertheless, the government continued to support the abortion reforms just to ensure its citizens are able to support and contribute towards the reforms.
This legislation saw a 5% decline in abortion practices, the biggest one-year decrease in ten years. Experts held that the decrease in the rate of abortion was as a result of the harsh economic condition that was experienced worldwide. The situation made women to be so careful with their sexual lives.
In 2009, the Centre for Birth Control collected data which indicated that both rate and number of abortion fell to 5% (Sherratt). For example, California reported high decrease of abortion rates as a result of the implementation of these policies.
Researchers found that out of 1000 females who are capable of giving birth, about 16 underwent abortion in 2008 while 15 did abortion in 2009; this interpreted to almost 38,000 less abortion in one year. The use of contraceptives; the pills, patch, intrauterine device (IUD), T-shaped plastic sperm-killer, provided by the government for both women and teenagers contributed the decline of abortion.
Another cause for the abortion decline was due to morning after pills. It was accessible to many women and teenagers because it was to be sold to women above 18 years in 2006; however, in 2007 the age was lowered to 17. Morning after pills is a form of emergency contraception. Elizabeth Ananat, a Duke University assistant professor, held that abortion should be restricted by controlling pregnancy through the provision of birth control techniques (Sherratt).
In 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions that were on the funding of abortion. During this time, the senate was under the control of the pro-abortion while the House of Representatives was under the control of the anti-abortion law makers (Robinson).
His predecessor affirmed the restrictions on the Medicaid funding on abortion. During Bush’s reign, there were no funds for family planning services that were given to bodies that conducted abortion. So serious was this restriction that even non-US government funds could not find their way into supporting family planning services.
This rule has been reinstated and rescinded among the Republicans and Democrats Head of States. For instance, Bill Clinton ensured that taxpayers’ funds were used to support abortion but when Bush took Office, he removed the funding. Currently, the Obama administration has rescinded the law. Bush, during his times, upheld that no single taxpayers’ money should be used to support abortions. This reinstatement of the law went down well with the anti-abortions.
These groups of people felt that it was a clear betrayal to American taxpayers who at the time were under a financial crisis. This law was known as the Mexico City Policy. They cited an example of over $400 million that US spent overseas on family planning activities. On the other hand, the anti-laws argue that the law minimize dangerous abortions and deaths that are conducted in the back streets of poor nations.
A denial on contraception, they believe has created low funding to overseas organizations tasked with offering family-planning and healthcare services. This law has led to different opinions among US citizens as they are divided between the Democrats and the Republicans position. It has been used as a tit for tat game when the main US political parties shift at the White House.
The lifting of the restriction has seen a steady increase in the number of terminated lives. For instance, in 2011, close to 329,445 abortions were carried out; this is far much higher than those abortions carried out in 2010. Statistically, over 18 million abortions had been carried out since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe versus Wade’s case in 1973. The department of Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million to use in supporting abortion.
Again, black women are 5 times more to perform an abortion than white women. As a result, over 1, 876 lives of black children are terminated through abortion every day in the US. Abortion has tremendously reduced the number of black Americans. This topic has been so controversial with others argue that the government should not force its citizens to pay taxes which are going to be used in stopping innocent lives.
Those for the law argue that the US citizens are paying for acts they do not do; therefore, the extra abortion costs should be met by the victims. They go ahead to reveal that even if a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, the child is innocent and should not be aborted at any cost. The government should not demand to acquire tax from its citizens. The right of a woman to abort should not entitle her to the federal funds.
Most citizens believe that it is their constitutional right to carry out abortion. This idea has received backings from the Democrats and the Supreme Court. They feel it is necessary to offer funding for family planning and abortion in case a woman’s life is in danger. On the other hand, the Republican Party has held that life termination through abortion is illegal; as a result, the government should not pay for such illegal activities.
From this point, it is clear that the US government has been changing their position on abortion depending on the political party that takes control of the White House. The two main political parties hold different ideologies on this contentious topic. Presently, some legislators are lobbying to pass laws that will totally deny all women from buying insurance policies that cover abortion.
Abortion affects directly the lives of both the mother and the foetus. With different opinions on abortion by the main political parties in the US, the citizens, especially women remained divided on the way forward and the ideology to hold. This issue is so serious; therefore, requires politicians not to play politics with it.
Since some abortions cause multiple deaths, that is, the mother and the unborn baby, the government ought to leave this issue to the women themselves to decide on the way forward (Cox). Moreover, issues of life and death have direct psychological repercussions to the family of the deceased. For instance, there are working class women who in case of death, their families remain affected economically and socially.
Death of a spouse due to abortion also shows unpreparedness in a family. In addition, the government does not always offer monetary support to children who are orphaned due to abortion, an act that they offer financial support through Medicaid. Therefore, the government ought to leave this issue to the women themselves to decide and fund the entire process.
In terms of human rights, terminating the life of the unborn child is ethically wrong. This practice encourages unsafe and unplanned sex among people in the American society as they believe that they will get support from the government in order to undergo an abortion.
The Republican opinion on abortion that no taxpayers’ money should be used to end the life of God’s creature should be upheld. It also encourages carelessness in sexual activities. This can lead to spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) like HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhoea among others. HIV/AIDS, for instance, is incurable, and from the World Health Organization’s statistics, the disease has caused numerous negative impacts across all sectors in the world.
The removal of government support will improve the societal moral behaviours as they will view abortion as an evil and illegal activity that is prosecuted in a court of law. The US government, therefore, should shun away from meeting abortion costs among its citizens.
A scrutiny of government expenditure shows that the US government uses over $542.4 million to fund abortion related activities. This cash can be directed to other programs like environmental conservation, enhancing food security in the third world countries, and sponsoring needy children in the society. For sure, this is a misplaced initiative by the government (Burneson).
The government should leave abortion to be a personal choice among women as their involvement cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Whatever a woman does with her body should be of minimal concern to the government. The government should offer guidance and risks involved in abortion.
The choice to abort or not should be left to a woman and her husband thereby avoiding public debates which will make it look controversial. If the government can leave this issue to be discussed privately among couples, then, the numerous life terminations will reduce tremendously. For instance, in a society where to remain unmarried to a woman is a leading cause for stigma, pregnancy will be the worst acts that women will want to happen to them. In fact, it will instil discipline among women.
On the other front, government’s strict legislation on abortion can make pregnant women to sought for abortion from backstreet health centres with untrained ‘doctors’. Another ordeal involves conducting ultrasound of the foetus where women view and listen to a given description. This proves traumatic. The strict legislation will directly affect the life of the victims; therefore, the victim should be left with this option of undergoing an abortion or not (Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate). People hold different beliefs in their lifetimes.
In this perspective, ones beliefs should not interfere with others. It also implies that the government should not take sides on this as it may be forcing others to abide by other people’s beliefs. The times for dictatorial leadership are long gone, unless the US government wants to take its citizens back to the middle ages; it should be up to the women to decide on what to do with their lives. Government involvement on the topic of abortion whether they support it or not causes severe effects to the lives of its citizens.
On one side, government support to abortion through funding can make many women to engage in unprotected sex as they know that they will receive government support in order to carry out an abortion. In addition, this support will go against other citizens’ beliefs; for example, the Catholics who hold that such practices are evil as they sum up to murder of innocent souls.
On the other hand, the government restrictions on abortion may cause dissatisfaction among women who their lives may be in danger during the pregnancy period. Further, unplanned pregnancies may be aborted under risky conditions as the government has not legalised those centres thereby enhancing secrecy.
One should be allowed to make and implement his/her decision freely. The freedom of choice is a fundamental law that the government should not interfere with at all times.
For instance, if a woman believes that abortion is an immoral act, she will not practice it, and the government should also not come in to convince her that, at times, it can be done. On the other hand, if another woman wants an abortion, it will remain her own choice and not somebody else. In this situation, the government should keep off in attempting to assist or hinder her abortion process.
Instead of engaging in criticisms, women should be given psychological, moral and emotional support in order to go through the process. US should copy how Belgium handles her women during abortion periods. For example, a woman sees a psychologist before going through the procedure. Notably, the role of the psychologist is not to convince the woman to rescind on her decision of aborting but to continue counselling on her own decision (Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate).
Since abortion may come with challenging and stressful situations, it remains the role of the psychologist to guide the women on how to handle these challenges as they come. In any case the counselling process may alter the woman’s idea; she is allowed to take time off and come back later for further counselling. This Belgium’s move upholds the freedom of choice among its citizens.
The US government should not interfere with personal decisions that directly affect its citizens. An attempt to meddle in this issue has been viewed as a possible way of contravening an individual’s beliefs and practices. Abortion should not be of foremost concern or debatable in the US but be left for women and their husbands to discuss in private places. It has also been noted that funding abortion has made taxpayers spend millions of dollars annually. Abortion, therefore, should be left to a woman to decide whether to perform it or not.
Works Cited
Abortion Plays Small Role in Health Reform Opposition. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Pew Research Center, 19 Nov. 2009. Web.
Abortion Should Not Be Up For Debate. Policymic.com. Policymic Inc., n.d. Web.
Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). ACLU, n.d. Web.
Burneson, Steven. “Polar Politics: Abortion should not be an issue considered by government .” CollegiateTimes.com. Educational Media Company, 17 Dec. 2012. Web.
Cox, William John. “Abortion: The Government’s Choice? Women’s Reproductive Rights in the New America.” Global Research. Global Research, 27 Oct. 2008. Web.
History of Abortion. Feminist.com. Touchstone, n.d. Web. Libertarianism. Libertarianism. The Advocates for Self-Government, n.d. Web.
Robinson, Ba . “U.S. LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION.” All about religious tolerance: the ReligiousTolerance.org web site. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 31 Jan. 2008. Web.
Sherratt, Timothy. “Religion, Abortion and the Role of Government.” Capital Commentary | Center for Public Justice. Center for Public Justice, 19 Oct. 2012. Web.
Torre, Sarah. “Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Abortions and Government Funding.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation |. N.p., 9 Jan. 2013. Web.