According to Cooper, writing in the journal Feminist Studies, the anti-abortion groups in South Dakota spent $2.65 million to defeat the proposition, and the pro-choice groups spent just $1.84 million. The anti-abortion groups ran television commercials that were "slick" but were not truthful, according to Cooper. One of the television commercials showed doctors (none of which were obstetricians or gynecologists) saying that "This measure [the anti-abortion legislation that was being challenged] does provide exceptions for the life and health of the mother." This statement "was untrue," Cooper explains. "The law did not have exceptions…" and yet the media did not challenge the honesty of the claims. Another claim made by the anti-abortion camp was that there was no need for abortions because in the new law "emergency contraception could be used for 14 days after unprotected intercourse"; Cooper notes that these medications are only effective for 72 hours after unprotected intercourse. The end result of a difficult campaign was a victory for pro-choice. Cooper adds that in order to sustain reproductive freedom in the United States "grassroots organizations should be empowered with funding and support." And when there...

6).
An article in the New York Times (Pear, 2011, p. 1) suggests that one way to assure that more women avoid "unintended pregnancies" -- and hence won't need to have an abortion -- is to require insurance companies to "offer contraceptives and other family planning services to women free of charge." In particular, the new healthcare law should, according to advocates, allow women to receive contraception medications "free of charge," Pear writes. The law, as written, states that insurance companies must cover "preventive health services," but because conservatives want to overturn the law, free contraceptives for women is up in the air.

Brand name contraceptives cost between $45 and $60 a month, Pear explains, and that is one of the reasons that Democrats in Congress and the White House put the rule into the new law, as a "benefit for women." The law also prohibits insurers from charging women "more than men of the same age for the same coverage," Pear continues. This part of the law was created because insurance premiums for women have "often been 25% to 50% higher than those for men" (Pear, p. 3).

Conclusion: Women should have the right to choose whether to have a baby or not. The Supreme Court has ruled, the law is on the books, and it should be respected and upheld.

Works Cited

Cooper, Cynthia L. "News and Views." Feminist Studies. 32.3 (2006): 660-670.

Munson, Ronald. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Florence, KY:

Thompson Wadsworth, 2008.

Pear, Robert. "Officials Consider Requiring Insurers to…