Arguments supporting abortion access and rights

Pro-Choice Issues in Focus

The debate over abortion has been a contentious issues in the United States since well before the Supreme Court handed down a ruling on the issue on January 23, 1973. That ruling, Roe v. Wade, which basically decriminalized abortion, has become a lightning rod for those opposed to abortion. Meantime, what are the issues that pro-choice organizations put forward to advance their cause? This paper reviews the issue and advocates for the woman's right to choose.

The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade asserted that a Texas law banning abortion was unconstitutional. Overturning that Texas law in effect decriminalized abortion in the majority of the other 49 states because those states "differed little from the Texas statute" (Munson, 2008, p. 547). Specifically the High Court ruling meant that during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, known as the "first trimester," the states are prohibited from restricting a woman's right to choose whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to its conclusion or not, according to Munson (p. 547).

As Munson reports on page 548, "…no other topic in medical ethics has attracted more attention or so polarized public opinion" than abortion. Due to the legal, social, religions and moral questions surrounding abortion, it has remained a flashpoint for controversy and debate. Prior to the High Court's decision in 1973, many abortions were conducted in less than sterile environments. Many abortions were conducted by "Back-alley abortionists with dirty hands and un-clean instruments," Munson explains; moreover, a woman who was known to have undergone an abortion procedures back in the day when it was illegal was looked down upon and her reputation was degraded.

One of the key social questions embraced by the pro-choice community is offered by Munson (p. 551): "Suppose that a woman becomes pregnant unintentionally" but she decides that carrying the pregnancy through to birth "will be harmful to her career or her way of life." Does she have "a moral duty" to make sure the child is born? Pro-choice voices will say no to that question, in a loud, unified voice.

Meanwhile, some states in the U.S. have passed legislation that to varying degrees attempts to make it very difficult for a woman to get an abortion. A case in point is South Dakota; in 2006, the legislature passed HB 1215, a bill that outlawed "abortion in all circumstances, from the moment of fertilization, and offered no exceptions for circumstances or rape, incest, or when the health of the woman was endangered" (Cooper, 2006, p. 2). The law specifically stated that a legal human being exists at "that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucia of a female human ovum" (Cooper, p. 2).

Planned Parenthood initially intended to sue the legislature and challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, instead a coalition of pro-choice organizations ("South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Lives") put the issue on the November ballot for the voters to decide. 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 are campaigns to keep abortions legal and available, "Artists, filmmakers, bloggers, writers and observers should be integrated into campaigns" (Cooper, p. 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.