Abortion and Feminism: New Legislation urges Restrictions on Abortion Policies
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20045953-503544.html
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled on one of the most controversial court cases in US history. In this landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, the rights of women were greatly protected (in the eyes of some). This case ruled that women had the right to obtain an abortion under the guaranteed rights of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since the ruling, both women and men have actively fought in both support and opposition. Abortion issues are consistently a major topic in elections and debates nationwide. Now more than ever, it seems legislation regarding abortion restrictions or limitations are being presented. As this NewsFlash will argue, in an increasingly politicized nation, the rights for women to access abortions are being criticized and many attempts have recently been made to restrict a woman’s access to such procedures.
The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade asserted that it was a woman’s right to obtain an abortion if she so chooses. This decision did not come without some restrictions. There are limitations to when a woman can obtain the procedure based on the trimester of pregnancy, and later the ability of the fetus to sustain life, as well as limitations on the types of medical procedures used to induce or perform the abortion.[i] These restrictions have appeased some who would otherwise be opposed to the legality, but it also has left the door ajar to the ability for further demands to limit the availability and practice of abortions. Currently, demands such as these are being formulated into pieces of legislation which are garnering much public attention.
Although the ruling of Roe v. Wade has been followed by over thirty years of time in which obtaining an abortion is considered a fundamental right, there has always been great opposition and activism to alter or reject the decision. Many pro-life supporters (who transcend nearly every cultural, political, religious, or social boundary) continue to assert that abortions are morally repugnant, a crime against mother and baby, and/or a plague on our nation’s society. What is of interesting note is that women in support of both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements are able to site women’s rights at the root of their causes.
For pro-lifers, prohibiting the use of abortions can be seen as a way for women to gain power. Many of them claim that a woman is at her most fulfilled in her role as a mother, and therefore, by allowing, or encouraging, women to abort, society is keeping women from fulfilling their natural desires. There are also other groups of feminists who are pro-life but do not assert the role of a woman is entirely domestic. These pro-life feminists site the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Betty Friedan, and others in their assertion that feminism is rooted in a strong anti-abortion tradition.[ii] Another pro-life website even went as far as to slander the work of Margaret Sanger by discussing her eugenic beliefs and going as far as to associate her with the Nazi Party.[iii]
Pro-Choice supporters also claim they are acting on behalf of women’s rights. For them, allowing a woman to choose whether to carry or abort a fetus is a personal choice. Giving her the agency to make this decision on behalf of herself and her body is seen as a huge step towards the advancement of women’s rights. This idea of agency and personal freedom is in accordance with the writings of most feminist intellectuals and activists. When their words and messages are twisted and manipulated by pro-life organizations it seems as though feminism has a completely different mission that the majority of its members actually share.
Clearly, the abortion issue is not something which often times takes the back-burner. As strong conservatives, radical Christians, and even some feminists continue to fight against the continued legality of abortions, throughout the nations, on both the state and federal levels, legislation is being introduced which would make huge steps towards limiting the availability, and even possibly the safety, of obtaining measures to abort a pregnancy.
Written on March 22, 2011 by Stephanie Condon and published by CBSNews, this article discusses the new attempts in South Dakota to further hinder women who try to obtain an abortion. Just over a week ago, the Governor of South Dakota signed into law a “controversial bill requiring women to receive counseling at a ‘pregnancy help center’ prior to having an abortion.”[iv] The law also asserts that a woman has to have a three day period following her counseling before she is eligible to obtain any procedure. This “waiting period” is nothing short of an excruciating period of emotions and fear which will be used as a scare tactic to encourage women to change their minds. Another issue that this waiting period causes is that women will have to travel great distances twice to obtain their aid. In South Dakota there is only one clinic which performs abortions meaning that women will have to travel a great deal. Clearly, making two trips will lessen the ability of a woman to seek services. Governor Duggard made the bold assertion that “[he] think[s] ‘everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of all other alternatives.’” He also stated that he would hope that the women who are now forced to seek this counseling will end up reconsidering their initial plans to carry out an abortion.
Already there is a strong backlash against the governor and this law. The ACLU has immediately sought to rectify this law and, along with Planned Parenthood, is planning to change the law. As the director of South Dakota’s ACLU, Robert Doody stated that “this shameful law not only interferes with a woman’s private medical decision, but it also presents a danger to those who provide abortion care to women. Women need reliable medical care and advice, not government mandates that push a political agenda.”
CBS wasn’t the only news media to pick up on this ridiculously intrusive law. Another article from the New York Times highlights that the three day waiting period is not the only flaw with this law. It goes into greater detail describing the mandated counseling: “All women seeking abortions, including victims of rape and incest, will be forced first to attend a counseling session at one of the state’s crisis pregnancy centers. These are unregulated facilities run by private groups with the aim of discouraging abortions, typically by displaying graphic photos or with ideological or religious messages or medical misinformation about psychological or physical risks.”[v]
This new counseling and waiting period law is not the only recent example of continued government intervention regarding women’s rights and abortion. Earlier, in class we discussed a bill, which is currently tabled, would cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion services. This Act, which also uses the offensive terminology of “forcible rape” is not the only other example of how the governments are becoming increasingly involved.[vi] This past week in Kansas, lawmakers approved a bill which “establishes licensing requirements for Kansas abortion clinics.”[vii] While this may initially seem to be a way to ensure safe and legal practices, when one looks closer at the bill it is evident that its true intentions are far from protecting women in their search for abortion services. Opponents of this law highlight its dangerous ability to allow the state to have the power to close clinics and make it harder for women to obtain legal aid. The article also points out that this is the third of a string of laws regarding abortions in the state. Clearly, Kansas legislature is working its hardest to institute policies which impede women from practicing their rights as granted by Roe v. Wade.
I also found it particularly interesting to learn that many states have enacted “trigger laws” regarding abortion. This means that should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, the act of obtaining an abortion automatically becomes illegal. Not all states have such policies, in fact, many have laws in place which will continue to support the legality of abortions should the Supreme Court ruling be rejected.[viii] To me, the presence of such laws is a clear indicator of the commitment of these states to upholding women’s rights. Although I did not do any in depth research, it is my hypothesis that the states which are pushing more intrusive governmental measures, such as those mentioned in this paper, are the states which have trigger laws in place. Clearly, these states are pushing for a complete reversal of the Roe ruling, however, they seem willing to settle with enacting every law possible to make it harder, yet still legal, for women to obtain abortion services.
In conclusion, even though women are currently guaranteed the right to obtain an abortion, the opposition is strong and becoming ever more politicized. Within the past two weeks, as this paper has highlighted, numerous pieces of state legislature has been proposed, or passed, which in essence, restrict the rights of women to obtain abortion services. States including South Dakota, Kansas, and Ohio [note: not mentioned in this paper the “heartbeat bill” which proposed that abortions should be made illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be identified], and even a nationwide federal bill have been issued to limit the access of abortion clinics, services, or aid. It seems the fight is growing ever stronger for women to defend their rights regarding their bodies. Hopefully, as more people become aware of the increasing number of governmental intrusions, a strong, unified, and persuasive voice will fight (and succeed!) on behalf of women.
[iii]http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_42.asp#But%20Margaret%20Sanger,%20its%20founder,%20opposed%20abortion
[vi] Class Notes, Simonson, February 11, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment