This semester has been a fast-track process and throughout the process we have learned about many inspirational social movements. From the women's movement to gay liberation movement, I think it is safe to say, we are all officially experts on social movements. In addition to learning about different social movements, we have all diligently worked on research for a social movement of our choosing. For me, the pro-life v. pro-choice social movement has put me on a roller coaster of emotions. With that being said, for my final opinion, I will state that I am a pro-life supporter, however, the pro-both movement makes a compelling argument! As the articles posted below will demonstrate, abortions, specifically late term abortions are wrong. This debate is not entirely black and white and neither is my opinion. The high amount of abortions performed in the United States is a bi-product of several factors. First, contraceptive use needs to be more accessible for people, especially young people. Furthermore, a more comprehensive sex-education must be administered to the youth of this nation immediately! A more current debate covered on all major news stations is the Health Care reform debate. Much controversy followed after the Senate voted to prohibit (as current law already states) federal subsides to find abortions. Furthermore, universal health care will not cover abortion expenses. The legislation addresses the concerns of the majority of Americans that do not want their tax dollars spent to fund abortions.
Addressing the abortion debate is not as simple as either making abortions legal or illegal. While most states ban late-term abortions, some still see these procedures as legal. Enraged by doctors who perform such procedures, one extremist was driven to murder Dr. George Tiller. There has to be some common ground that will make the majority happy. There will always be extremists on each side of the abortion debate. The most informative resource (and resource I could relate to) was the "pro-both" movement. The pro-both movement seeks to reduce the amount of abortions performed annually, yet wants to provide women with resources in the event of extreme circumstances (rape, incest, health risk, etc). Additionally, the pro-both movement is rooted in two viewpoints 1)that our society must seek to make abortion a rarity and 2)society must not infringe on a women's right to control her reproductive choices. This may appear to be conflicting principles, however, the pro-both movement argues that as a society we must work to prevent unplanned pregnancies rather than condoning abortions as a substitution to birth control.
Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements are valid in their arguments. Pro-choice supporters feel that women have a right to choose what happens to their bodies. Further, they do not see a fetus as human life therefore, abortion is not murder. Pro-life supporters see life as beginning at conception and ending at natural death. Any obstruction to an unborn fetus is murder. Both sides have contrasting interests while the pro-both movement seeks to find a middle ground.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Article #5: Late Term Abortions
Following the death of Dr. George Tiller, late-term abortion provider, a doctor in the state of Nebraska has hired on two of Dr. Tiller’s associates in hopes of continuing late-term abortion procedures. The clinic in Nebraska often performs abortions on babies that could potentially survive outside of the womb. Groups and organizations that opposed the work of Dr. George Tiller are turning their energy towards the Nebraska clinic. Dr. Carhart, a doctor at the Nebraska clinic feels the same obligation towards helping women abort unintended pregnancies, however, state law in Nebraska has clear regulations and restrictions on abortions. No woman can undergo an abortion procedure after the fetus has clearly reached viability, except when the mother’s life is in danger.
Dr. Carhart has performed abortions since the 1970s and has no intention of stopping anytime in the near future. Following Dr. Tiller’s death, Dr. Carhart offered to run Dr. Tiller's clinic, however, the Tiller family made a decision to close one of only three late-term abortion clinics in the county. While Dr. Carhart will not disclose how late in a pregnancy he is willing to perform an abortion, Dr. Tiller noted publically that he would perform abortions up to 23 weeks and perhaps later depending on consultation with the clinic.
Writer Monica Davey had her article published in the New York Times and while the article appears to be unbiased, Davey learns more towards pro-life. By disclosing evidence that doctors such as Dr. Carhart and Dr. Tiller perform abortions so late in a pregnancy, Davey is persuading the reader that this is morally wrong.
The below video shows a protest at Dr. Carhart’s clinic. Both pro-choice and pro-life supports were present at the protest:
A website dedicated to informing people on late term abortions offers readers further information on this topic. There are three different types of late-term or partial birth abortions. The first and most popularly known procedure is called D&E (Dilation and Evacuation). In this procedure, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus and then separates the fetus into pieces. Once the fetus has been separated, each piece is removed one at a time. Then a vacuum is inserted to ensure no remains are left intact . The second known procedure is an early-induced labor.
This procedure is very painful for the mother and rarely used. The third procedure is called intact D&X surgery. This procedure extends over 2-3 days while the cervix is dilated. Once the cervix has been dilated, the doctor pulls the fetus out feet first leaving the head inside the mother. Forceps are then used to puncture the skull and extract the brain tissue and the baby is then removed.
For additional information please view: http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/late-term-abortion.htm
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8322733799&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8322735604&cisb=22_T8322735603&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=1
Dr. Carhart has performed abortions since the 1970s and has no intention of stopping anytime in the near future. Following Dr. Tiller’s death, Dr. Carhart offered to run Dr. Tiller's clinic, however, the Tiller family made a decision to close one of only three late-term abortion clinics in the county. While Dr. Carhart will not disclose how late in a pregnancy he is willing to perform an abortion, Dr. Tiller noted publically that he would perform abortions up to 23 weeks and perhaps later depending on consultation with the clinic.
Writer Monica Davey had her article published in the New York Times and while the article appears to be unbiased, Davey learns more towards pro-life. By disclosing evidence that doctors such as Dr. Carhart and Dr. Tiller perform abortions so late in a pregnancy, Davey is persuading the reader that this is morally wrong.
The below video shows a protest at Dr. Carhart’s clinic. Both pro-choice and pro-life supports were present at the protest:
A website dedicated to informing people on late term abortions offers readers further information on this topic. There are three different types of late-term or partial birth abortions. The first and most popularly known procedure is called D&E (Dilation and Evacuation). In this procedure, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus and then separates the fetus into pieces. Once the fetus has been separated, each piece is removed one at a time. Then a vacuum is inserted to ensure no remains are left intact . The second known procedure is an early-induced labor.
This procedure is very painful for the mother and rarely used. The third procedure is called intact D&X surgery. This procedure extends over 2-3 days while the cervix is dilated. Once the cervix has been dilated, the doctor pulls the fetus out feet first leaving the head inside the mother. Forceps are then used to puncture the skull and extract the brain tissue and the baby is then removed.
For additional information please view: http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/late-term-abortion.htm
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8322733799&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8322735604&cisb=22_T8322735603&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=1
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article #4: Abortion as Birth Control
Are girls using abortions as a form of birth control? According to writer Beezy Marsh, some young women are experiencing as many as 4 abortions by their 18th birthdays. Out of 19,000 girls who underwent an abortion procedure last year, for 1,500 of them, this was not their first. Furthermore, in an extreme case, one girl was on her 8th abortion! Due to government secrecy regarding abortion information, the exact details are often kept undocumented in public records.
Why are young girls so seemingly carefree about the idea of having an abortion? Marsh suggests that for many of these young women, abortion is not seen as a traumatic event, but rather a routine option of ridding themselves of an unplanned or unintended pregnancy. Marsh further suggests that this type of behavior is a response to the failures of contraceptive services to young people. For some young women, going on birth control is not an option and risk becoming pregnant due to unprotected sexual activities. The risks are not limited to unplanned pregnancies. For many young men and women, the risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections is present.
These girls are not the majority of women. In fact, most women who experience an abortion attempt to make sure they do not find themselves in the same situation. Suggestions that could help these young women are offered in this article such as better access to birth control and addressing other issues that may be present in the girls’ lives.
Additional sources offer a response to “abortion as birth control.” Contacept.org is an organization combating the use of abortion as a substitute for contraception. Many women are utilizing abortion in the event that they improperly used contraception or in some cases, no contraceptive use was used at all. This organization offers some statistics on women seeking abortions and birth control:
1) 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
2) 8% never used a method of birth control
3) 47% had at least one previous abortion
This website also offers reasons women give for having an abortion:
1) 75% of women said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
2) 75% said they cannot afford a child
3) 50% noted that they do not want to be a single parent or that they are experiencing problems with their partner
Women using abortion as a means of birth control are at risk for many other health concerns such as, reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS, future reproductive problems. The risks associated with abortions include: complications to cervical laceration, hemorrhaging, pain, infection, and emotional distress.
http://www.contracept.org/abortifacient.php
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8315690486&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=76&resultsUrlKey=29_T8315690489&cisb=22_T8315690488&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138794&docNo=76
Article #3: The Stupak Amendemnt
“What My Amendment Won’t Do,” is an article written by Bart Stupak, Democratic representative from Michigan. His article informs readers of how the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitt amendment in the House health care reform bill will and will not affect Americans. First he claims that the amendment maintains current law and the status quo. The Hyde amendment, passed 33 years ago, prohibits federal money to fund abortions, however, the law does not limit private insurance companies from offering plans that do cover abortions. Stupak argues that this new amendment, Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitt, would not change current legislation. Women receiving money from the federal government are prohibited from using that money to fund an abortion. These women can obtain an abortion from a private facility and use their own money. In no way, would this amendment make obtaining an abortion more difficult for women according to Stupak. Further, Stupak argues that the majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars spent to fund abortions and the house should maintain laws preventing such action. Stupak also notes that he encourages Congress to develop a health care plan that will offer health insurance to more Americans, although urges Congress to maintain its stance on federal funding for abortions.
Stupak is indeed persuasive in his article. He informs his reader that the new amendment will not change access to abortions. He feels the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitt amendment is a win-win for both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. Although I he evades answering how private insurance companies will respond to the amendment, he does offer a comprehensive response that will hopefully answer many of the questions those opposing the amendment have.
The health care reform proposal has sparked controversy on numerous levels, however, abortion appears to be one of the leading areas of debate. For decades, women (and men) in the United States have fought hard to earn the right to make choices to their own bodies. Many women view the Stupak amendment as a huge regression. Laws passed at the federal level creating greater restriction on abortions will affect millions of women. Many will argue that abortions are still covered under private insurance plans. Pro-choice supporters argue that by prohibiting federal funding can lead to greater hardships for women seeking an abortion.
Planned Parenthood, a pro-choice organization, offers a different perspective. As an organization, they feel this amendment would ultimately create many barriers for women in need of an abortion. Women would need to maintain two different types of health insurance coverage, one that covers abortions and one that covers everything else. Please view the Planned Parenthood video below for a brief synopsis of the hardships this amendment, or others similar to it, could potentially create if passed.
Another interesting article I located regarding private insurance companies and abortion policies notes that currently, 5 states restrict insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plants and 4 limit coverage to cases when the life of the mother is at risk.
Here are a few other highlights from the article:
1) 12 states restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees
2) 3 of the states provide abortion coverage only when the woman’s life in endangered
3) 2 of the states flatly prohibit any insurance coverage of abortion for public employees
For additional information here in the link to the article: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_RICA.pdf
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8305791991&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T8305791994&cisb=22_T8305791993&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=43
Additional Sources:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/?gclid=CP227_KppZ8CFR4Eagod-gqfmQ
Stupak is indeed persuasive in his article. He informs his reader that the new amendment will not change access to abortions. He feels the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitt amendment is a win-win for both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. Although I he evades answering how private insurance companies will respond to the amendment, he does offer a comprehensive response that will hopefully answer many of the questions those opposing the amendment have.
The health care reform proposal has sparked controversy on numerous levels, however, abortion appears to be one of the leading areas of debate. For decades, women (and men) in the United States have fought hard to earn the right to make choices to their own bodies. Many women view the Stupak amendment as a huge regression. Laws passed at the federal level creating greater restriction on abortions will affect millions of women. Many will argue that abortions are still covered under private insurance plans. Pro-choice supporters argue that by prohibiting federal funding can lead to greater hardships for women seeking an abortion.
Planned Parenthood, a pro-choice organization, offers a different perspective. As an organization, they feel this amendment would ultimately create many barriers for women in need of an abortion. Women would need to maintain two different types of health insurance coverage, one that covers abortions and one that covers everything else. Please view the Planned Parenthood video below for a brief synopsis of the hardships this amendment, or others similar to it, could potentially create if passed.
Another interesting article I located regarding private insurance companies and abortion policies notes that currently, 5 states restrict insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plants and 4 limit coverage to cases when the life of the mother is at risk.
Here are a few other highlights from the article:
1) 12 states restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees
2) 3 of the states provide abortion coverage only when the woman’s life in endangered
3) 2 of the states flatly prohibit any insurance coverage of abortion for public employees
For additional information here in the link to the article: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_RICA.pdf
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8305791991&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T8305791994&cisb=22_T8305791993&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=43
Additional Sources:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/?gclid=CP227_KppZ8CFR4Eagod-gqfmQ
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Article #2: Ultrasound Prior to Abortion
In a recent article posted January 7, 2010 writer Zach Krajacic attempts to persuade readers that a law enforcing women contemplating abortion to view an ultrasound of an abortion would significantly decrease the amount of abortions performed annually. Abby Johnson, director of Planned Parenthood in Texas, resigned from her position after viewing an ultrasound of an abortion. Krajacic feels that other women would have a similar response if they were placed in the same position as Johnson. By implementing this type of law would hopefully better inform mothers of what an abortion actually entails. Krajacic claims that many women considering abortion see the procedure as removing growing tissue rather than a procedure that indeed ends life. After viewing an abortion procedure, many women choose to continue with their pregnancy. While the law would not ban abortions, hopes of the new law would ideally decrease the amount of abortions performed every year.
Zrajacic is quite persuasive in his article noting the following reasons for success of this law:
1) Even Pro-Choice advocates are for the reduction in number of abortions performed annually
2) Abortion would still be legal and not limit a woman’s right to choose
3) Allow women to make more informed decisions prior to abortion
Many states have adapted laws that require abortion providers to grant the opportunity of an ultrasound for the woman considering an abortion. Additionally, Republicans have presented a bill to Congress that would require all abortion clinics to complete an ultrasound. Although this bill has not been passed, as Krajacic states, it is a step in the right direction. Krajacic argues that a law such as this would benefit both pro-life and pro-choice supporters. The law would reduce the amount of abortions, yet abortion would still remain an option for women facing an unintended pregnancy.
There are similar laws that would force women to either view an ultrasound of their unborn child or abandon the option of abortion. I’ve included some links to several websites describing how these laws affect women. In August of 2009, Oklahoma overturned a law passed the prior year that required doctors to perform an ultrasound and describe the fetus to the mother prior to abortion. If the woman refused the ultrasound she would be prohibited from having an abortion.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/oklahoma-overturns-abortion-la.html
In our own state, Arizona, recent change in abortion laws will affect the lives of women. Below is a list of new abortion laws signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
HB 2400: creates a state ban on partial birth abortions so local prosecutors can make sure the federal partial-birth abortion ban can be better enforced.
HB 2564: would protect women, parents, children, and the civil rights of health care providers.
That legislation calls for informed consent before abortions along with a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent requirements, a prohibition on non-doctors doing surgical abortions, and of conscience for all health care providers, including pharmacists, on abortion and abortion drugs.
SB 1175: a bill to ban non-physicians from doing abortions in the state -- important because a nurse at Planned Parenthood has been putting women's health at risk by doing surgical abortions.
http://www.lifenews.com/state4295.html
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8305036836&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8305036843&cisb=22_T8305036842&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=1
Zrajacic is quite persuasive in his article noting the following reasons for success of this law:
1) Even Pro-Choice advocates are for the reduction in number of abortions performed annually
2) Abortion would still be legal and not limit a woman’s right to choose
3) Allow women to make more informed decisions prior to abortion
Many states have adapted laws that require abortion providers to grant the opportunity of an ultrasound for the woman considering an abortion. Additionally, Republicans have presented a bill to Congress that would require all abortion clinics to complete an ultrasound. Although this bill has not been passed, as Krajacic states, it is a step in the right direction. Krajacic argues that a law such as this would benefit both pro-life and pro-choice supporters. The law would reduce the amount of abortions, yet abortion would still remain an option for women facing an unintended pregnancy.
There are similar laws that would force women to either view an ultrasound of their unborn child or abandon the option of abortion. I’ve included some links to several websites describing how these laws affect women. In August of 2009, Oklahoma overturned a law passed the prior year that required doctors to perform an ultrasound and describe the fetus to the mother prior to abortion. If the woman refused the ultrasound she would be prohibited from having an abortion.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/oklahoma-overturns-abortion-la.html
In our own state, Arizona, recent change in abortion laws will affect the lives of women. Below is a list of new abortion laws signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
HB 2400: creates a state ban on partial birth abortions so local prosecutors can make sure the federal partial-birth abortion ban can be better enforced.
HB 2564: would protect women, parents, children, and the civil rights of health care providers.
That legislation calls for informed consent before abortions along with a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent requirements, a prohibition on non-doctors doing surgical abortions, and of conscience for all health care providers, including pharmacists, on abortion and abortion drugs.
SB 1175: a bill to ban non-physicians from doing abortions in the state -- important because a nurse at Planned Parenthood has been putting women's health at risk by doing surgical abortions.
http://www.lifenews.com/state4295.html
Article: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8305036836&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8305036843&cisb=22_T8305036842&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=1
Article #1: Murder of Dr. Tiller (late-term abortion provider)
A man standing trail for first-degree murder feels justified in his actions. Scott Roeder of Kansas City, Missouri is charged with one count of first-degree murder and an additional two counts of aggravated assault. The victim is Dr. George Tiller, a man who performs late term abortions.One of only three clinics in the nation that provides 3rd trimester abortion, Dr. Tiller has been receiving threats for decades. While Roeder claims to be protecting innocent life he took the life of a doctor. Most pro-life organizations see innocent life, all life, as needing protection. Many pro-life supporters see the moment of conception to the moment of natural death as the standard, so by Roeder maliciously murdering Dr. Tiller contradicts every moral the pro-life movement stands for. Roeder has absolutely no regrets for his actions, in fact, he feels he was serving the public's interest. In an interview with AP, Roeder stated:
"No, I don't have any regrets because I have been told so far at least four women have changed their minds, that I know of, and have chosen to have the baby," Roeder said. "So even if one changed her mind it would be worth it. No, I don't have any regrets."
Roeder felt as though he had an obligation to protect the life of unborn children. For Dr. Tiller, his untimely death was not the first attempt to cease late term abortions at his clinic. In 1993, Tiller was shot in both arms and prior to this, in 1986, his clinic was bombed. Following Tiller’s death, Roeder confessed to the murder.
The article was located on Foxnews.com and as a conservative news station, I felt the article did little to shame and denounce Roeder’s actions. On several occasions, the article quotes comments implying that Roeder’s actions were heroic-like, not the murderer he truly is. Although, when commenting on Tiller’s close family’s response to the murder, they note that family sees Roeder as a terrorist.
Time.com offers a more emotional approach when covering the story of Scott Roeder. Author Nancy Gibbs begins her article stating how organizations that support abortion rights such as Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation have issued statements condemning Roeder and his violent response to Dr. Tiller’s actions. Executive director of American Life League stated, “Pro-lifers by our nature and commitment to human rights reject violence as a means of resistance” (www.time.com )
Please take a moment and watch the video below. Democracy Now! brings together many experts to comment on life and murder of Dr. Tiller. This video further elaborates on the work of Dr. Tiller and further coverage of his murder. Dr. Tiller was not the first abortion provider killed in this pro-life v. pro-choice debate.
Original article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573426,00.html
Additional sources: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902120,00.html
"No, I don't have any regrets because I have been told so far at least four women have changed their minds, that I know of, and have chosen to have the baby," Roeder said. "So even if one changed her mind it would be worth it. No, I don't have any regrets."
Roeder felt as though he had an obligation to protect the life of unborn children. For Dr. Tiller, his untimely death was not the first attempt to cease late term abortions at his clinic. In 1993, Tiller was shot in both arms and prior to this, in 1986, his clinic was bombed. Following Tiller’s death, Roeder confessed to the murder.
The article was located on Foxnews.com and as a conservative news station, I felt the article did little to shame and denounce Roeder’s actions. On several occasions, the article quotes comments implying that Roeder’s actions were heroic-like, not the murderer he truly is. Although, when commenting on Tiller’s close family’s response to the murder, they note that family sees Roeder as a terrorist.
Time.com offers a more emotional approach when covering the story of Scott Roeder. Author Nancy Gibbs begins her article stating how organizations that support abortion rights such as Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation have issued statements condemning Roeder and his violent response to Dr. Tiller’s actions. Executive director of American Life League stated, “Pro-lifers by our nature and commitment to human rights reject violence as a means of resistance” (www.time.com )
Please take a moment and watch the video below. Democracy Now! brings together many experts to comment on life and murder of Dr. Tiller. This video further elaborates on the work of Dr. Tiller and further coverage of his murder. Dr. Tiller was not the first abortion provider killed in this pro-life v. pro-choice debate.
Original article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573426,00.html
Additional sources: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902120,00.html
Roe v. Wade
I wanted to share this with the class. I was up watching television last night and this commercial aired. As a women studies minor, I learned early on how important the Roe. v. Wade supreme court ruling is to women and other pro-choice activists. In 1973, abortion was deemed legal. Watch this video as a woman ("Jane Roe"), who changed U.S. history, now supports PRO-LIFE! Very interesting. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)