This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Woman

Abortion Laws:  Women’s Rights are Being Limited!

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Term Paper Example

Needs to be 5+ Pages with many, proper citations/sources

Abortion Laws:  Women’s Rights are Being Limited!

            Abortions have been a part of societies since the ancient times (Tierney 7).  The Pro-Life activist and many religious groups are very much against abortion; they believe it to be murder to kill an unborn child.  An abortion is the loss of a fetus before it is able to sustain independent life, legally in the United States this is before the twenty-eighth week of the last menstrual period (3).  The important part of this definition to look at is the potentiality of independent life, an abortion occurs before a fetus (not a child) is completely formed with the ability to maintain life without its host.

Feminists, often called “women’s liberation” groups, fought to legalize abortions to protect women’s health and give women the freedom to choose (Reagan 228).  In 1973, Roe vs. Wade case, the Supreme Court legalized abortion; they reached this decision because of the Bill of Rights which implied a Right to Privacy, a provision which states citizens have the right to be let alone, which they then interpreted to include free access to birth control and abortions (Ginsberg 149).  However, since this time President Bush has been working to add limits.  During Bush’s presidency he has:  reinstated the Mexico City Policy (Krisberg, “Reproductive Health” 16), signed the Born Alive Infants protection Act (Bush 1315), and signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 (Dlouhy 2780).

The very first day President Bush took office, he reinstated the Mexico City Policy (Hinrichsen 24), which is commonly called the “global gag” rule (Krisberg, “Reproductive Health” 16).  The “global gag” rule prevents U.S. funds from being given to organizations that perform or even council on abortion abroad (“President Bush Re-Imposes” 56).  International Planned Parenthood Federation receives funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, with this new policy in place they will have to cut informational programs all over the world (56).  Cutting the informational programs not only on abortion, but also family planning, and maternal health will cause maternal mortality rates to grow.  This Policy is forcing clinics to make a choice to accept the U.S. Agency for International Development Funds and discontinue abortion-related services or continue with the services and reject the funds, which will force them to face funding shortages (Krisberg, “Reproductive Health” 16).  The American Bar Association objects to the “global gag” rule which they say, “imposes governmental censorship on healthcare professional,” which ultimately forces them to give, “incomplete advice (which) can be worse than no advice at all,” which is “inconsistent with free speech guarantees,” and is “inconsistent with several U.S. foreign policy goals, including enhancing the status of women within democracies” (Krisberg, “International HIV/AIDS”12).

Also, the aid given to Africa and the Caribbean to fight HIV/AIDS will also fall under the “global gag” rule, which can in due course do more harm than good (Krisberg, International HIV/AIDS” 12).  Adding the rule to the clinics will prevent the introduction of family planning, maternal health, and HIV/AIDS services at the public level (12).  For many of the people this is the only source of health care that they can walk to within a day (“President Bush Re-Imposes 56”).    President Bush has made an agreement with the Vatican to preach abstinence only (Hinrichsen 24).  Consequently, this agreement has ended shipments of condoms to sixteen of the poorest countries in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific where HIV/AIDS is substantially growing (24).  This is not only going to cause the HIV/AIDS epidemic to grow even more rapidly, it also imposes on their freedom of religion.  Kathy Hall- Martinez, JD, director of the International Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights stated, “These providers should not have a mandate handed down from our country about how they should be organizing their health services”(Krisberg, “International HIV/AIDS” 12).  The problem with this Martinez states is, “a lot of these organizations are struggling already to try to reach people and when told they have to separate, it’s just incredibly inefficient in terms of resources” (12).

The “global gag” rule not only forces USAID not to be used in family planning and abortion services, it also forces foreign nongovernmental organizations that obtain any USAID from counseling or giving abortions, even if they use their own non-U.S. funds (Smith 12).  The U.S. government has no right to say how foreign non-governmental organizations spend their own funds.  It also does not permit foreign nongovernmental organizations to lobby their own governments on abortion, without fear of losing USAID, which greatly affects their right to freedom of speech (12).

On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (Bush 1315).  As he was signing the bill he remarked, “The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law” (1351).  This is a nice thought, but seems to be a little idealistic, when you figure in all the different scenarios of abortion.  He also commented that, “It is a step toward the day when the promise of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights” (1315).  He stated, “This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes in the words of Pop John Paul II, (a hospitable, a welcoming culture)”(1315).  The President also remarked, “This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure- is considered a person under Federal law” (1315).  His comment does seem like something everyone would want and would go without saying.  Although the law defines a born alive infant as one whom, “at any stage of development, is expelled from the mothers body and displays any several specific signs of life – breathing, a heartbeat, and/or definite movement of voluntary muscles (“Born-Alive Infants” 680).  In a human embryo a heartbeat occurs at 18 to 22 days after it has been fertilized (680).  The law is not clear if the signs of life occur before or after the umbilical cord is cut (680).   If a human embryo’s heart starts beating so early in the first trimester, then any fetus still attached by an umbilical cord would so signs of life.  Even with the questions and potential problems that lie ahead, the bill didn’t receive very much opposition, there was only one representative that voted against the bill, Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC), his problem with the bill was there was “insufficient time to study how it would affect the application of various federal laws” (Robinson, “Remarks on Signing”).  Watt also stated, “If we took our roles as lawmakers more seriously, we would examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that it serves only the intended symbolic purpose and does not result in unintended consequences…It is quite apparent the Majority considered the political objective much more important than the legislative or substantive objective” (Robinson, “Remarks on Signing”).

On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the “Partial Birth” abortion ban into law; it is the first federal restriction on a specific type of abortion method (Dlouhy 2780).  The Act is also the only federal law ever to consist of such phrases as “gruesome and inhumane” and “removing the baby’s brains” (Gorney 14-33).  Such phrases are intended to dramatize and condemn the procedure and are simply not necessary language to include in the law.  This law has been declared unconstitutional by three separate U.S. District court judges (14-33).  A number of temporary restraining orders have been filed against the law, which will allow the doctors and clinics that filed the lawsuit to continue with the “partial birth” abortion procedure until it is decided in a court of law (Dlouhy 2780).  There is however a common misconception about the law, it does not make third-trimester abortions illegal only the way in which the fetus is removed (Gorney 14-33).  Medical intervention to end a pregnancy in the third trimester is quite rare (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that only 1% of all medical abortions are done after 21 weeks and some of them are performed only because the fetus has already died in the womb (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  Generally physicians will not perform abortions after the 20th or 21st week of gestation; however exceptions to this do take place, if it is necessary to save the life of the woman or to keep her from sustaining serious or disabling harm (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  There is another exception to this rule, which is if the fetus has hydrocephalus; a disease where the infant is alive, but cannot live for long and will never gain consciousness (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  Hydrocephalus is not usually discovered until late in pregnancies and affects 1 in 2,000 fetuses, which is about 5,000 a year in the United States (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  With this law in place, it will limit the procedure options available and will cause women to go through a more serious and riskier procedure to her health (Robinson, “Abortions Delayed”).  Usually a woman that undergoes an abortion, so late in her pregnancy desired to have a child, but something went terribly wrong.  The woman will already be experiencing mental anguish and now unneeded additional physical trauma.

Through the Mexico City Policy, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, President Bush has been limiting the rights of American women along with the rights of women of other countries, since the very first day of his presidency.  Women have abortions for all different reasons, but what is important is the woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.  President Bush needs to remember the famous old saying “Don’t judge a man (or in this case woman) until you have walked a mile in his (her) shoes.”  Setting limits or even making abortions illegal are not going to eliminate them, which history has made apparent, just make them more dangerous for women.  President Bush is obviously against abortion, but he should remember the Constitution, which gives all Americans the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to privacy, which we should portray to other countries as well.

 

 

Works Cited

“Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-207.” Pediatrics 111.3 (2003):  680.

Bush, George W. “Remarks on Signing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 38.32 (2002):  1315.

Dlouhy, Jennifer A.  “Bush Signs ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban.” CQ Weekly 61.43 (2003):  2780.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore j. Lowi, and Margaret Weir.  We the People:  An Introduction to American Politics.  5th ed. New York:  Norton, 2005.  149.

Gorney, Cynthia.  “Gambling with Abortion.” Harper’s Magazine 309.1854 (2004):  14-33.

Hinrichsen, Don.  “Ladies You Have No Choice.” World Watch 17.2 (2004):  24.

Krisberg, Kim.  “International HIV/AIDS Funds Face New Restrictions.” Nation’s Health 33.3 (2003):  12.

Krisberg, Kim.  “Reproductive Health Suffers Under U.S. Barriers.” Nation’s Health 33.9 (2003):  16.

“President Bush Re-Imposes ‘Gag Rule’ on Family Planning Funds.” Women’s International Network News 27.2 (2001):  56.

Reagan, Leslie J.  When Abortion was a Crime:  Women, Medicine and Law in the United States, 1867-1973.  California:  The Regents of University of California, 1997.  228.

Robinson, B.A.  “The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.”  Religious Tolerance. Org 6 Jan. 2004.  6 April 2005.  http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm.

Robinson, B.A.  “Why are Some Abortions Delayed Until Late in Pregnancy.”  Religious Tolerance.org 8 March 2004.  23 March 2005.

http://www.religoustolerance.org/abo_late.htm.

Smith, Priscilla, Kathy Hall Martinez, and Tzili Mor.  “A Violation of the Right to Free Speech and Democratic Participation.”  Human Rights:  Journal of the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities 29.3 (2003):  12.

Tierney, Helen.  “Abortion.”  Women’s Studies Encyclopedia revised and expanded ed.  1999.  1-7.

 

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask