.. he best conditions possible. Copyright 1975 by Seth Mydans. All rights reserved. http://www.theatantic/politics/abortion/myda.htm May 11th, 2000 At the same time, there begins to appear on the part of some an alarming readiness to subordinate rights of freedom of choice in the area of human reproduction to governmental coercion. Notwithstanding all this, we continue to maintain strict antiabortion laws on the books of at least four fifths of our states, denying freedom of choice to women and physicians and compelling the unwilling to bear the unwanted. Since, however, abortions are still so difficult to obtain, we force the birth of millions more unwanted children every year.
to cut down on population growth we should make abortion easy and safe while we continue to develop other and more satisfactory methods of family limitation. There is no perfect contraceptive. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports that the intrauterine devices, one of the most effective contraceptives available today, have a failure rate of 1.5 to 3%. This means that if all married women in the United States could and did use these contraceptives, there would still be about 350,000 to 700,000 unwanted pregnancies a year among married women alone. Even sterilization is not a 100% effective method of contraception; some operations fail. Therefore, in order to insure a complete and thorough birth control program, abortion must be made available as a legal right to all women who request it.
The situation is today reversed; abortion under modern hospital conditions is safer than childbirth. Though the population experts have not yet aligned themselves on the side of abortion-law reform, something is beginning to happen. Seven states–Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina–have amended their laws to permit abortion not only to save life but also to protect the health, mental and physical, of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and to avert the birth of defective offspring The 8000 to 10,000 in-hospital abortions contrast, of course, with the estimated one million performed outside hospitals annually. Probably not much more than one half of these are performed by doctors; the rest by the kindly neighbor, the close friend, or the woman herself. Generally speaking, the laws do not distinguish in their prohibitions of abortions between doctors and nondoctors.
Moreover, the out-of-hospital abortions performed by doctors are obtained by the same group which accounts for the bulk of the in-hospital abortions: the middle- and upper-income white woman who can afford the hundreds or thousands charged for expert medical service outside the law. And these are the same women who can afford to go to Japan, Sweden, England, or one of the Iron Curtain countries where abortions are legal and where they typically cost something between $10 and $25. But most of the old laws on abortion remain unchanged on the statute books. In a few states, like Connecticut or Missouri, the law says that the abortion may be performed to save the life of the child as well as that of the mother, although no one is sure what this means. As a matter of fact, no one knows what the laws which permit abortion to save the life of the mother mean.
In order that a physician may best serve his patients he is expected to exalt the standards of his profession and to extend its sphere of usefulness. Copyright 1969 by Harriet Pilpel. All rights reserved. http://www.theatantic/politics/abortion/pilp.htm Published FridayMarch 31, 2000 White House Seeks to Join Carhart Case Washington (AP) – The Clinton administration is asking the Supreme Court to let it join a Nebraska doctor’s fight against a state abortion law. Justice Department lawyers asked the nation’s highest court this week to let them participate when the Nebraska case is argued before the justices the week of April 24. They said the law violates some women’s constitutional right to end their pregnancies.
The court’s decision in the case may determine the fate of 30 states’ bans on the late-term procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion and which is known medically as intact dilation and extraction. President Clinton twice has vetoed a federal ban enacted by Congress. The court has not yet said whether it will let the administration participate in the argument, but in a friend-of-the-court brief made public Thursday government lawyers called the Nebraska law unconstitutional for three reasons. The brief says the law challenged by Bellevue doctor LeRoy Carhart is written so broadly that it could be enforced against more than one abortion procedure and is too vague to let doctors know just what abortion techniques are outlawed. Even if the law is limited to a single procedure, the brief says, it unduly burdens a woman’s right to abortion because it fails to provide an exception to preserve the pregnant woman’s health. The only exception to Nebraska’s ban is if the outlawed procedure is necessary to save a woman’s life.
The statute therefore prohibits the . . . method even when a physician concludes that that method is best suited to preserve the health of a particular woman, the brief says. The ban therefore forces at least some pregnant women to forgo a safer abortion method for one that would compromise their health.
The surgical procedure involves partly extracting a fetus, legs first, then cutting the skull and draining it to allow full removal from the uterus. Abortion-rights advocates say the court’s decision could broadly safeguard or dramatically erode abortion rights, depending on what state legislatures can consider when regulating abortions. A federal appeals court struck down the Nebraska law along with Iowa and Arkansas laws. But nearly identical laws in Illinois and Wisconsin were up-held by another federal appeals court. Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. http://www.abortionclinics.org/nebraska.htm Jan. 22, 1998, marked the 25th anniversary of the landmark decision Roe v.
Wade. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling, of course, gave women the legal right to have an abortion. Poll results: 8,885 people voted 1. Should abortion be legal? 77% yes22% no 1% don’t know 2.
Will Roe v. Wade be overturned in your lifetime? 13% yes 69% no 18% don’t know 3. Have you or has anyone you know had an abortion? 86% yes 10% no 4% don’t know Poll date: Jan. 18, 1998 Copyright 1995-2000 Women.com Networks. All rights reserved. http://www.womanswire.com/backtalk/roewade.html Abortion Coverage Leaves Women out of the Picture By Tiffany Devitt For example, the Supreme Court decision that enabled states to require women under the age of 18 to get parental consent before getting an abortion was widely covered.
However, while more than 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and thousands of them are affected by state legislation requiring parental consent, reporters almost never sought their reaction, covering the legal change without consulting anyone in the group that it impacts. This graphic depicts the abortion debate as two hands tugging at a rag doll– suggesting that the debate is about an unborn child rather than about women’s rights http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/abortion-c overage.html Bibliography http://www.womanswire.com/backtalk/roewade.html http://www.abortionclinics.org/nebraska.htm http://www.womanswire.com/backtalk/roewade.html http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/abortion-c overage.html.