Abortion in Politics Term Paper
- Length: 8 pages
- Sources: 9
- Subject: Women's Issues - Abortion
- Type: Term Paper
- Paper: #53647740
Excerpt from Term Paper :
Abortion in Politics
The argument on legality of abortion is nurtured deep into root of American society. The judgment on Roe v. Wade where abortion became legal to today's politics. This paper analyses in depth the issue surrounding this subject and present solutions and considerations.
The struggle for sexual rights has been linked to the process of building citizenship and has been challenged mainly by entrenched conservative groups like Parents' groups, or as defenders of morality and decency, these actors construct ditches in the field of freedoms. (Linda 1998) Most of these groups are linked to private Catholic schools and religious colleges; there are also church officials of the Catholic Church, party leaders and officials who are visible actors in the field of sexual politics.
Roe v. Wade is a controversial policy decision that the Supreme Court of the United States on 22 January 1973 precipitated by a majority of seven to two judges. This was the abortion automatically placed under the right to privacy. (Falconer, p149-85) The Supreme Court confirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey's prior decision in principle. (Hoggart, pp117-28) He explained, however, government regulations, which represented his opinion an unreasonable burden (undue burden) for the woman, be permitted - such as mandatory counseling and a 24-hour reflection period before surgery.
By decision Roe v. Wade, it was decreed that are a pregnant woman, without reasons that the weighted differently, and may abort the pregnancy, up to that point at which a fetus is viable. (Fisher, pp295-313) The state may regulate the first three months of pregnancy, the method of abortion, but only as far as is necessary to protect the health of pregnant women. From the moment of viability at the time with the 28th, the 24th day Week of pregnancy must be recognized, a federal abortion ban, with the restriction that later abortions must be possible if they are necessary, according to medical opinion to preserve the life or health of the woman. (Baird, pp197-21) This is for example the decision taken two years later, the German Federal Constitutional Court over fundamental, one control period to be incompatible with the principle of human dignity grounded protection of life regarded. (James, pp76-78)
Abortion and it effects the government
While there are cases where there may be overlap between the candidates of the two contending parties, such as on immigration or the war with Iraq, in the case of abortion positions are irreconcilable. All Republican candidates oppose abortion, and the Democrats are all in favor of the decision of women. In the first case, Mike Huckabbe, Dunkan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Ronmey and Fred D. Thompson, have expressed anti-abortion.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis J. Kucinich and Barack Obama have made explicit their support for this right. There is a special case, that of Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican candidate with a speech in favor of abortion, but recently withdrew from the race, illustrates how among voters of that party is a current, which contrasts with the hegemonic position of the wing feature conservatively. (Falconer, p149-85)
In the center of this dispute are two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, one adopted 35 years ago in the famous Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, and another very recent, approved in April 2007, which condemns late-term abortion (partial-birth abortion). The aspiring Democrats support the validity of the first and oppose the criminalization of abortion in later stages of pregnancy. By contrast, Republicans are bent on reversing the decision in Roe v. Wade and supported the second decision of the court. But what does this mean?
The core of the decision taken in 1973 by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, implied that abortions are permissible in the United States women's decision until the moment when the fetus viable outside the womb. The time is here quite lax. According to this resolution, for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy the State may not restrict the right of women to abortion can be regulated from the time and allow it to week 24, when compromised the health of the woman and may restrict or prohibit in the last trimester when the fetus is viable, unless the abortion is necessary, by an appropriate medical opinion, being in danger the life or health of the mother. (Falconer, p149-85)
Although it has been controversial, but minor adjustments in some states, the resolution has been in effect for seven decades in that country. This leads to the second theme of confrontation between the Democratic and Republican candidates. (Lind, p88-89) In 1995 and 1997 the U.S. Congress, at the request of representatives of the pro-life groups issued a law banning late-term abortion refers to the medical procedure used for termination of pregnancy in advanced stages of pregnancy, but was that year vetoed by then President William Clinton.
In 2003, Congress, with a majority vote of the Republicans, pressed the issue, and President George W. Bush signed the minutes. Immediately after three district courts in the United States, declared the measure unconstitutional, what happened to the Supreme Court, which approved it in April this year by five votes to four.
The late-term abortion is not clearly defined in the new law and refers to the medical procedure after second-trimester dilation of the cervix uteri and the extraction of the fetus, no exception is in danger even if pregnant women. The Democratic opposition is based on that there are circumstances in which life and health of women is at serious risk, as in the case of bleeding or birth defects. It represents a reversal of the decision on Roe v. Wade and expresses the level of controversy over abortion in the United States.
Anyway, this confrontation is beneficial to adopt a separate resolution in the case of unconstitutional procedures brought against the decriminalization of abortion. It is very important to observe and take advantage of the situation. Republicans win the cease to have effect in that country resolution on Roe v. Wade, because in our nation is not to debate the issue of late abortion. (Fisher, p295-313)
As the former president George W. Bush thought about military interventions in different countries, the U.S. president, promoted him within the "initiatives in favor of life" such as declaring the January 22 National Day of Sanctity of Human Life.
An example of this influence is the events in the U.S. legislative. On September 25, 2002, the House of Representatives approved a bill extending the margins of the conscientious objection of doctors, insurance and health institutions. The law allows hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and insurance companies to pay without losing federal funding.
This clause favors that Catholic hospitals and other anti-abortion is not obliged to perform by law. In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as constitutional law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003 that prohibits abortion for "partial birth" procedure takes place in late gestation and involved the decapitation of the fetus. The sentence passed by a 5-4 majority, was a milestone in the history of legal abortion in America, as it was the first time since the decriminalization of abortion in 1973 that the country's highest court gives green light to a law prohibiting it in certain cases, even if accepted certain restrictions (for example, require parental notification before an abortion a minor).
According to a survey cited by the Herald Tribune, 40% of Americans believe abortion should be legal, 20% are against, and 40% think it should be subject to stricter limits. There is also a broad social movement that worked to achieve the decriminalization of abortion and struggling to keep their acquired rights. Among other organizations underlined the APPF (Planned Parenthood Federation of America) and the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Falconer, p149-85)
Secularism is an essential condition of democracy and the free conscience protection and privacy of the individual. (Baird, pp197-21) Free consciousness is an attribute of the individual, the individual, not society or the state. Only the individual is endowed with consciousness and can be religious or fail to profess a faith. The modern state lacks the attribute of religion and of any conviction that is in the space of consciousness. In other words, the State can not think or be conscious. If religious institutions were the individual cease to be. Here is a founding premise of secularism. (Baird, pp197-21)
In the political sphere secularism has at least three senses: the separation or not state intervention in religious matters, the sense of neutrality of state institutions and the freedom of conscience for all regardless of religion or creed. (Hoggart, pp117-28) Secularism understood as separation of the sacred and the profane allowed shifting the power of the clergy and limiting its monopoly on truth. Could be instituted to separate the autonomy of the state and was likely to rule according to the will of the people and not a divine or sacred legitimacy that…