Thursday, March 24, 2016

Will Texas Set a Precedent on Abortion Laws?

In the Supreme Court Case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Whole Woman's Health argues that abortion laws like the ones in place in Texas are a violation of "a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy." Like we discussed in class, the law would require all doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic. It also sets a standard for the clinic that is similar to the surgical wings of hospitals with specific regulations on room/door sizes, anesthesia, staff, etc. The supporters of this law argue that it is only meant to protect women's health. They say that they are doing what is in the best interest of the women. Yet the CEO of Whole Woman's Health, Amy Hagstrom Miller, argues that the enforcers of these laws are "bullies who are trying to control our bodies and our lives." She goes a step further to say that the steps they are taking to "protect" women are not actually medical advancements whatsoever, so they laws only succeed in making it more difficult to get an abortion, not more safe. Organizations fighting for reproductive rights are not only having to stand up against political agendas, but they are being trampled on by the very laws that were created to protect the individual rights of American citizens in the first place. The right to your own body should seem like a basic human right, yet the American government is systematically undermining our ability to take measures to control our own bodies and lives in the manor we see fit. All in all I agree with Whole Woman's Health and their stance that these laws would remove the power over a woman's body from the woman and place it in the hands of the government who decides when, where, and how women will be able (if they are able at all) to receive an abortion, all under the guise that it is in their best interest.

1 comment:

  1. I am very pro-abortion because all though I know that it is a life that deserves to live there can be several circumstances in which the mother should be able to decide. For example a rape or a situation where the baby will be born with deformities and in which their life would be full of difficulties. With this being said, I believe the government should have no say or input on whether a woman is able to have an abortion. I feel like just in the same way we do not go out and put a stop to mariguana or narcotics, plastic surgery, tattoos, or even alcohol consumption they shouldn't be out here trying to control the ways in which a woman decides to either have or not have a child. In the end, if the child is born and brought into a harmful environment or in a situation where the parents are not wanting the child, there is more harm being done to the child physically and mentally. Then it becomes a government problem because CPS or foster homes become involved in which the govt has to provide support and then work even harder to get the child back into society without any psychological damages.