1

Abortion: Pro-choice On October 21st, 2012, seventeen-week pregnant Savita Halappanavar admitted herself into University Hospital Galway due to severe back pains. Senior hospital physicians diagnosed her with a miscarriage: her fetus had no chance of survival. However, she was denied an abortion because in Ireland, the procedure is illegal as long as the fetuss heartbeat was detectable. On October 24th, the
Savita Halappanavar: victim of Irelands system. www.nytimes.com

heartbeat stopped and Halappanavar was able to surgically remove the fetuss remains. But she wasnt ready to leave the hospital yet. During her extended stay, Halappanavar contracted a deadly bacterial blood infection. Because women undergoing abortion have their cervix dilated, their risk of infection increases the longer the miscarriage persists (Dalby). Halappanavars cervix was exposed for three days, allowing a shockingly long window for [her] to become infected (Rohan). On October 28th, after four days of intensive care, she died from septicemia. Halappanavars husband, Mr. Halappanavar, asked How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyways? The event is surrounded by controversy and many people are starting to wonder about the justification of Irelands stringent abortion laws (Dalby). In the United States today, abortion is legal, but anti-abortion groups continue to erode the law. In order to prevent the implementation of strict abortion laws, the federal government should take action to enforce the legality of abortion by removing restrictions on the procedure. The 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade allowed women to have abortions (Glazer); however, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1992 through the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that states are allowed to impose restrictions on abortion as long as they did not put an undue

burden on women seeking abortion (Bassett, "Oklahoma Personhood Measure Struck Down"; McBride). Some of these restrictions involve mandatory waiting periods (the intent being that mothers would decide not to have an abortion), and written consent by both parents of a minor (Stewart and Darney). For example, in Mississippi the mother has to pay two visits to the abortion clinic because of the 24 hour waiting period. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) recognizes that many women are forced to go out-of-state to have abortions because many clinics have closed due to intimidation and violence. Susan Hill, an abortion counselor and in charge of eight abortion clinics in Mississippi, commented that shes seen women sleeping in cars because theres not enough money to get a hotel roomits just a general insult to them that the state thinks they need another 24 hours to think about it (Glazer). These women described by Hill cannot even afford to rent a hotel for a day. How can they be financially sound enough to raise children? Also, because it is required to receive consent from both parents, many teenage mothers delay informing their parents about their pregnancies. Therefore, abortions are performed later in pregnancy, increasing the potential health risks, according to Kate Michelman, a former president of the NARAL (Glazer). In the first nine weeks of pregnancy, an abortion can be administered through a pill: RU-486 or Mifepristone. The pill is a steroid that blocks progesterone, a hormone that readies the uterine lining for embryos to burrow into (Glazer; Abortion). Mifepristone, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, is extremely safe as it is not a major surgery and requires no anesthesia (The Safety and Legal Abortion and the Hazards of Illegal Abortion). Abortions over 9 weeks in pregnancies involve surgeries such as suction curettage or vacuum aspiration both are quite painful. It usually involves the use of anesthesia, a drug that could put patients at risk (Abortion; Rosenfeld, Iden, and Lyerly). In

2009, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) counted 784,507 reported abortions, 15.5% of which were from teens aged 15-19. Consequently, 121,599 teens could have been medically endangered. In addition, the CDC acknowledges that states are not required to report abortion statistics. Only 48 of the 52 areas (includes District of Columbia and New York City as their own areas) participated in the 2009 report. Therefore, many other teenage abortions were unreported; many other teenagers were potentially at risk (Pazol et al.). The restrictions that the federal government upholds are actually putting an undue burden both financially and medically on women. Anti-abortionists though they claim that their cause is moral are not actually pro-life. If the United States were to adopt a strict anti-abortion law similar to Irelands, there could be many more victims like Savita Halappanavar. Forcing women to sacrifice their lives to an embryo is not upholding the right to life, says Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute which promotes individual rights. A womans life cannot be disregarded in order to save a fetus because a fetus is just a clump of pre-human cells which mystical notions of religious dogma treat.as constituting a person. Peikoff argues that the fetus is a part of a woman and parts of women dont have different rights from the whole entity. Instead, no one else including the government can dictate what a woman can do with her body. It is a basic principle of freedom (Peikoff). In fact, it is an intrusion on the rights of women if the government forces them to continue pregnancy as the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the fourteenth amendment provides the right for women to terminate their pregnancies (Borgmanm and Weis; Glazer). The fourteenth amendment protects privacy and banning abortions is a violation of medical privacy. Restrictions on abortion are just the footholds of anti-abortionist actions: Their real goal is to ban abortion outright; however, this will eliminate womens autonomy of their

bodies. Therefore, pro-life groups are not advocating for life; they are advocating for suppression (Borgmann and Weis). Not only do restrictions pose as obstacles for abortions but they also threaten womens rights. Many pro-life groups believe that since life starts at conception, it is murder to abort a fetus (Dougherty). But it seems as though they do not consider the quality of life that some of these saved children have to endure. A comprehensive review of the 50 states' policies regarding abortion and child welfare revealed contradictions in the pro-life argument: States with the most restrictive abortion laws also spend the least to facilitate adoption, to provide subsistence to poor children and to educate children in general. The study concludes, Pro-life states are less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children. Their concern for the weak and vulnerable appears to stop at birth. (Borgmann and Weiss) The states have managed to restrict abortion and deter women from abortion, but then what? The most popular reason why mothers have abortions is that they simply are not ready to have a child. Although pro-choice groups often describe abortion-seeking women as selfish and irresponsible, surveys show that most women pursue abortion because of factors such as the mothers inability to support one or more children (Stewart and Darney; Abortion). They cannot give a quality life to their unborn children and neither can the states. Abortion-seeking mothers empathize with their unborn children, understanding that their lives could be filled with many hardships such as poverty. Women must be given the option to delay carrying out unwanted pregnancies until they are emotionally and financially prepared so they can offer a better life for their children. According to Felicia H. Stewart, a co-director from the Center for Reproductive

Health Research and Policy, and Philip D. Darney, chief of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at San Francisco General Hospital, abortion-seeking women take motherhood seriously because for many women (and couples), the moral importance of being the best parents they can be is a significant issue. If abortion was banned or further restricted like in Ireland, women who are unable to be the best parents will be forced to carry out pregnancies (Stewart and Darney). These women will also find it difficult to pursue education and employment opportunity that can benefit the quality of life for their children and future children (Roe v. Wade and the Right to Choose). These restrictions result in a no-win situation for unborn children: if they are born, they are hurt by either the governments lack of care, or by their mothers lack of offerings. The reasons behind abortion restrictions are unjust. Pro-life groups that pressure state legislature to pass these restrictions indirectly state that women are incompetent. It is not a coincidence that states with stricter restrictions also have feelings of opposition to womens changing roles in society. Believers of the traditional institution view women as unable to make important moral decisions and their sexuality is shameful. As a result, forced childbearing is an appropriate punishment for sexual irresponsibility. However, according to Caitlin Borgmann (state strategies coordinator) and Catherine Weiss (director of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project), there is no biological difference between a fetus that is conceived voluntarily or by rape. Anti-abortionists argue that the rape victim is innocent while the woman who chooses to have sex is tainted. (Borgman and Weiss). Generally, abortions are supported by pro-lifers in cases of rape or incest. If they truly believed that life begins at conception, then they wouldnt be supporting abortion even in cases of rape and incest (Dougherty). This shows that anti-abortionists, under the cover of fetal rights, aim to punish

women for embracing their freedoms and choices. Should restrictions be legal based on such prejudices of women? Considering the discrimination women face through abortion restrictions that are justified by conservative values and prejudices, the image that emerges is of a woman subjugated, not a fetus saved (Borgmann and Weis). These restrictions should not be legal as they undermine women. In conclusion, restrictions harm a womans right to safety, choices, and freedom. The federal government is already starting to reform abortion access as shown through ObamaCare, a nation-wide health care program that offers insurance-covered contraceptives and abortions (Kleinke). In New York, a new law to update an old abortion law that hasnt been changed since 1970 is currently being pushed through. This new law would ensure the legality of abortion even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned in the future and ease the abortion restrictions (Kaplan). Some other states in recent years have been voting to challenge the Supreme Court case. For example, in conservative state Oklahoma, people voted not to recognize fetuses as persons (Bassett, "Oklahoma Personhood Measure Struck Down"). Though there has been progress with abortion access reform, abortion-seeking women need more reforms that involve lifting harsh restrictions on abortion or debating when life starts. The federal government should remove restrictions considering the detrimental effects and outcomes after having them in place since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.