Abortion in the United States

Abortion in the United States (Pro-Choice)

Abortion has evoked considerable debate and controversy throughout history. In the United States too, it has been a subject of heated debate through most of its history. In recent times, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements have taken diametrically opposite positions on the ethical, legal and medical aspects of the issue. Both sides present seemingly valid arguments for their stands and try to refute the counter-arguments of the other side by presenting moral, legal, and medical "facts." Abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973 following the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court. The decision, however, did not put an end to the controversy and subsequent decisions by the Court have even watered down the Roe decision by placing greater restrictions on abortion. While recognizing some of the arguments on either side of the divide, I personally feel that the right of a woman over her body takes precedence over any "moral" argument against abortion. So even though abortion may not always be a desirable option, I feel that women should have the right to choose whether she wants to give birth or terminate her pregnancy, particularly in its earlier stage. In this paper I shall present an overview of abortion's history in the U.S., the legal decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue from Roe onwards, besides presenting some of the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" arguments and why I feel that women's right over her own body over-rides all other considerations.

Early History of Abortion in the United States

Following the Common Law.

At the time of United States' independence in late 18th century, and for some time thereafter, there was no specific legislation on abortion, and the states were guided by the traditional British common law in the matter. (Mohr, 1979, p. 3) The British common law did not formally recognize the existence of a fetus in until it had "quickened." Hence abortion was allowed before "quickening" but after "quickening" the expulsion and destruction of a fetus without due cause was considered a crime, because the fetus had now demonstrated its separate existence by "moving." However, the penalty for abortion even after "quickening" was much less harsh than for taking a life as the "crime" was not considered its equivalent (Ibid, 4)

Lenient Attitude

This relatively 'lenient' attitude towards abortion continued in the U.S. In the early decades of the 19th century although the common law on abortion in Britain had become stricter by that time. Abortions in America until the 1830s appear to have been not uncommon; they were mostly performed by the women themselves or by midwives, as well as qualified doctors and many home medical manuals of the time contained information on how to bring about abortion. Most of the abortions in the early 1800s were for ending illegitimate pregnancies and not for limiting the size of families and were generally tolerated by the American public opinion. (Ibid. 17-18)

Upsurge in Abortions

Specific laws dealing with abortion began to appear in the U.S. In the 1920s. Connecticut first outlawed post-quickening abortion in 1921 and ten states and one federal territory had enacted legislation by 1841, making certain types of abortion illegal. After 1940, a great upsurge in incidences of abortion was noticed in the United States. The increase was mainly attributable to the fact that an increasing number of "white, married, Protestant, native-born women of the middle and upper classes" had started to resort to abortion for delaying their childbearing or limiting their families. (Ibid 46-47) The upsurge in the incidences of abortion made it more visible in the public eye and it also became highly commercialized as various medical practitioners began to advertise their services in the press. The legislators, though concerned about the upsurge in abortions, remained cautious in enacting stricter laws against it until the 1860s.

Physicians Lead Anti-Abortion Campaign

By the mid-nineteenth century, the American physicians had begun a concerted drive to improve, professionalize, and ultimately control the practice of medicine in the United States. The founding of the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847 was an important step in this direction. Physicians associated with the AMA launched an aggressive campaign against abortion in the late 1850s and managed to persuade the legislators to move beyond tentative concern about increasing incidences of abortion; the campaign also began to have an effect on the public opinion that had until 1860 been largely tolerant of abortion.

The physicians' anti-abortion campaign gained further momentum by a political alliance with the anti-obscenity movement in the 1870s. As a result of the highly successful campaign and concerted pressure exerted by AMA and its members, abortion had been outlawed by every state in the nation by 1900. (Staggenborg, 1994, p. 3)

Turning of the Tide

Illegal abortions, however, continued to be available but were often unsafe. As a result, and partly due to a more liberal environment in the 1960s the tide once again began to turn in favor of legalized abortion. In the late 1960s and early 70s some states began to pass laws to "protect the health of women" that effectively allowed abortion on demand. Abortion in a majority of U.S. states was still illegal at the end of 1972 except to protect the woman's life only. ("Abortion in the United States"2006)

Roe v. Wade (1973) and Subsequent U.S. Laws on Abortion

Roe v Wade (1973) was the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States after almost a century. The case involved a class action suit brought by Norma McCorvey against Texas's anti-abortion laws, claiming that the laws violated her fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution. The majority (7-2) ruling, authored by Justice Blackman, held that the 'right of privacy' was implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and this "right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision." The Court's decision specified that during the first trimester of pregnancy, the State cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, the State was allowed to regulate the abortion procedure "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, the State could "choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion." However, in a subsequent ruling in Doe v. Bolton the Court expanded on Roe and effectively allowed women to legally seek abortion in all stages of pregnancy for health reasons. ("Roe v. Wade expanded..." n.d.)

Over the next decade and more, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several attempts by the state to restrict abortion. For example, in 1983 the Court found it unconstitutional to require a woman seeking abortion to be given information about risks or consequences of the procedure and to wait 24 hours after receiving information before having the abortion. Similarly, in 1986 the court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring that state-developed materials about abortion be offered to women undergoing the procedure. (McGee and Merz, 2004) However, since 1989, the Court has permitted several state-imposed restrictions to stand. In its decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the court upheld a Missouri law that prohibited the use of public facilities or public employees for abortion and required a physician to determine the viability of a fetus older than 20 weeks before performing an abortion. In Rust v. Sullivan (1991), the court upheld a federal policy that prevented health care providers who received federal funding from engaging in any activities that encouraged or promoted abortion as a method of family planning (Ibid.)

In another important case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the Court reaffirmed the central ruling of Roe v. Wade -- but permitted states more freedom in regulating abortion. The court reversed some of its prior rulings on abortion, and allowed the states to enact laws which required that a woman be given information about abortion risks and consequences and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. (Ibid.) Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to uphold the legality of abortion but has allowed the states to place restrictions and conditions on its availability.

Pro-Choice v Pro-Life Arguments number of arguments have been advanced by the pro-abortionists (who prefer to call themselves "pro-choice") and the anti-abortionists (who label themselves as "pro-life"). Some of these are discussed below:

Does Life Begin at Conception?

The basic "pro-life" argument on the issue is that life begins from the moment of its conception and the fetus has a right to life that cannot be taken away, even by the mother. According to this argument, abortion involves the taking away of life and is as serious a crime as murder (Gordon, 1999). The more strident anti-abortionists consider abortion to be an even greater crime than first degree murder since, according to their view-point, it involves the taking away of a defenseless and innocent life, while a murderer of a grown-up person may well have some cause for comitting the murder.

The "pro-choice" stand on this issue is that it is wrong to presume that life begins at conception and the concept is just a religious dogma with no scientific basis. They argue that the fetus only has the potential of developing into a full-fledged human being; in the same way as an acorn has the potential of developing into an oak tree. In their view it is as ludicrous to call an embryo an independent human being as it would be to call an acorn an oak tree. (Lewis, 2000)

Right of Woman Over Her Body

The main "pro-choice" argument is that a woman has a right of control over her own body and nobody, including the state or her family has the right to take away her right in this regard. According to this argument, the right of control over her own body includes a woman's right to terminate or continue with her pregnancy. (Ibid.)

The "pro-life" counter argument to this contention is that the fetus is a discreet individual with all the rights of a separate person; the mother has no right to take away its life as such an act involves infringement of the rights of a separate individual.

Fetus as a Parasite

Another common 'pro-choice' argument on the abortion issue is that the fetus is a parasite and during the time it remains inside a woman's body, it is fully dependent on the food she eats, the air she breathes, and uses her circulatory and respiratory system; therefore it has no rights as a separate individual. (Gordon, 1999) The 'pro-lifers,' on the other hand, contend that even infants or children are dependant on their parents or other adults for most of their needs; hence a small child is no different from a fetus in this respect and just as killing of one's children is a crime, so is the 'killing' of a fetus.

Scientific Argument:

The pro-life advocates now also quote "scientific evidence" in support of their contention that an unborn fetus develops into a full-fledged individual much before it is born. They contend that an unborn fetus has a beating heart, tiny little fingers and toes by just 18 days after fertilization and is not just "a blob of tissue" to be callously discarded. Moreover, the pro-lifers argue that the fetus moves and is capable of sensations while inside the womb; hence it is a living entity and has an individual right to life. (Hughes, 2003)

The 'pro-choice' response to the first point is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence about the early development of human features -- and some of the so-called 'evidence' provided by the pro-lifers has been proved to be inaccurate and contrived; as for the second argument, they point out that individual rights are due to man because of his "rationality" rather than because of his existence as a "living entity." If the latter was the case, then all animals would have such rights because they move and have sensations and it would make any person who ate meat an accessory to murder! (Parker, 2002)

The Religious Belief

Most Christians, especially the Roman Catholics, are leading proponents of the 'pro-choice' argument that life starts from the moment of conception. Their stand against abortion is further cemented by the belief that God alone is Lord of the womb and the womb is an inviolable place. Moreover, since Mary chose to give birth to Christ in the face of adversity, devout Christians consider giving of life as a sacred duty and a chance provided to mankind for attaining salvation. Also, the unborn baby is considered as the most defenseless form of life created in the image of God; therefore abortion, according to Christian belief is violent murder.

The pro-abortionists, of course, dismiss all 'religious' arguments on abortion out of hand as unscientific and dogmatic. It is also their opinion that religious people are welcome to apply their beliefs about abortion on themselves but they have no right to force others to follow their beliefs.

The Feminist View on Abortion

Although the earliest U.S. feminist movement was opposed to abortion, the modern day feminists consider the right to abortion as the corner-stone of women's rights. Feminists regard its denial as just a legacy of the ancient, deep-rooted prejudice and an example of discrimination against the female sex by a male-dominated society that wants to keep women in their traditional place, i.e., shackled to babies and the kitchen sink.

Public Opinion

The U.S. public opinion about abortion remains divided and complex. Unlike the hard-core 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' advocates, opinion polls show that the general public can be 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' at the same time. For example, in a 1973 survey carried out 3 months after the Roe v. Wade decision, 63% of the respondents agreed with the statement: "It's against God's will to destroy any human life, especially that of an unborn baby" while 68% agreed with the statement: "So long as a doctor has to be consulted, the matter of an abortion is only a question of a woman's decision with her doctor's professional advice." (Quoted by Ladd and Bowman, 1999, p. 2) recent (April 2006) poll on Roe v Wade, asked: "Do you favor or oppose the part of Roe v. Wade that made abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?" 49% of respondents said yes while 47% indicated opposition. ("Abortion" 2006 -- Wikipedia) The U.S. public opinion on abortion, therefore, does not tilt decisively in either direction.