PRO-CHOICE v. PRO-LIFE
The popular debate between those who are pro-life v. pro-choice appears to be amplified over the past decade. Conservatives urge our nation to restrict the act of abortion while liberals pursue more available options, for women experiencing an unintended pregnancy, through means of abortion and more importantly, a change in current legislature. Prior to Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortions were illegal with the exception of aborting a fetus to insure the life of the mother in the event that a full-term pregnancy would be life threatening. However, abortions were at one point legal prior to quickening, the movement of a fetus a mother felt inside of her ("National abortion federation," 2009). During the mid to late 1800s many states established laws prohibiting abortion and by 1900 every state in the nation passed laws criminalizing abortion (Staggenborg, 1991). Several different factors contributed to the criminalization of abortions including, but not limited to, fear that immigrant children would outnumber native born children, element of risk involved in abortions, as most of these procedures were not performed within the realm of a hospital, and doctors desire for exclusive rights to performing abortions and other medical procedures. The latter being the most prominent factor in successfully criminalizing abortion. Medical doctors would not reveal this as a primary reason for criminalizing abortions and as a result the newly formed American Medical Associated (AMA) stated abortions were immoral and entirely too dangerous for unlicensed individuals to perform such procedures (“National abortion federation,” 2009).
The success and protections of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, were not sufficient in creating better access for women seeking safe abortions. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 87% of counties in the United States do not have abortion providers ("NARAL pro-choice america," 2009). Pro-choice supporters continue to work towards attaining more available options for women considering an abortion.
Central arguments regarding the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate include: abortions, euthanasia, the death penalty, and war. A pro-life position affirms that contraception use, emergency contraception use, abortion (first two trimesters) and childbirth must remain legal. The point of conflict between the two groups is primarily focused on the issue of abortion where the pro-life position believes life, even non-viable, must be protected by the government. The pro-choice position argues the government does not have the right to impede a woman’s choice to continue with or terminate her pregnancy.
Pro-choice Movement:
The pro-choice movement’s foundation is comprised of the idea that women may choose to terminate the life of her unborn child. The government should be limited with their involvement concerning women's bodies. Originating in the 1960s, the “Pro-Choice” movement was a loose coalition of the women’s movement (Staggenborg, 1991). NARAL, an organization supporting the pro-choice movement, promotes a variety of avenues to prevent unintended pregnancies in hopes of decreasing the amount of potential abortions performed annually. One fundamental concern of NARAL is the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision and the commitment of 19 states to outlaw abortion in the event the decision is indeed overturned. NARAL fears legislature will expand beyond the scope of abortion and ultimately criminalize different forms of birth control. America’s pro-choice movement actively seeks to maintain privacy protections for women nationally and their right to determine the medical procedures for their own bodies.
Pro-choice rhetoric dates back to the first abortions, however, public awareness and outspoken commitment to pro-choice is relatively new (only about 40 years). For more than 40 years, the NARAL Pro-choice America has been a leading advocate for the pro-choice movement. Founded in 1969, known as the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, NARAL seeks the right to privacy and choice for women considering an abortion, however, at this time, abortions were illegal and punishable. A short four years following the NARAL’s founding, the monumental Roe v. Wade case granted women the right to pursue an abortion outside the limitations of a life or death situation. In the same year, NARAL changed its name to National Abortion Rights Action League. Prior to the court ruling of Roe v. Wade, which ultimately legalized abortions nationally, abortions had remained illegal from the 1880s until 1973. During this time, the number of women who sought abortions was not decreased. Many women experienced infections, diseases, and death as a result of an unsafe abortion.
Throughout the pro-choice movement many events have occurred to both cultivate and derail the movement’s success. A few key events include:
1. Roe V. Wade:
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate the pregnancy of her unborn children, however, laws restricting abortions except in the event of saving the mother’s life, prohibited her from doing so. The Supreme Court ruled that Roe, and other women alike, was protected by the 14th amendment and thus legalized abortions nationally.
2. Hyde Amendment:
The Hyde amendment was passed in 1976 prohibiting federal healthcare from covering abortion expenses. Medicaid, a federal-funded healthcare option for low-income citizens, would now be prohibited from insuring abortions except in the event that the mother was raped, involved in incest, or possibility of death. Most states have followed in the federal government’s footsteps by prohibiting public funded abortions. To get an idea of how this has affected women in the United States, the Hyde amendment would potentially restrict public funding for 20 million women who currently receive publically funded health insurance ("American civil liberties," 2009).
3. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services was a ruling that granted states the right to place restrictions on abortion rights. The state is allowed to restrict public funds, buildings, and employees from performing abortions. Furthermore, the state of Missouri passed a law with a preamble stating, "The life of each human being begins at conception” ("National abortion federation," 2009).
According to Goodwin and Jasper (2009), “Mass society theorists, argued that social movements occurred when a society had lost other, “intermediary” organizations that discontented individuals could join” (11). The pro-choice movement, which was organized prior to the ruling of Roe V. Wade, could have been explained using the mass society theory. As the United States government had criminalized abortions, citizens could potentially felt as though the government was infringing upon their rights, and with no other present organizations addressing abortion concerns, members of society joined together in order to seek change. The pro-choice movement membership was not limited to feminists and ordinary citizens, but included large organizations, which funded a majority of the movement. Resource mobilization was essential for the pro-choice movement as the necessary monetary donations and sponsorship assisted the movement as a whole. As Goodwin and Jasper (2009) state, “[O]ne prerequisite for any organization was a certain level of resources, especially money, to sustain it” (11). Without resources contributed to the pro-choice movement, the successes the movement has attained would have more than likely been impossible. Looking at the political process theory in relation to the pro-choice movement, the political and economic atmosphere of the United States most definitely played active roles throughout the movement’s history. Specifically, the 1960s was a volatile time for the United States with its involvement in the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were drafted to fight over sees and were killed. Considering the current political and economic status of our nation, abortion becomes an even greater concern. Universal healthcare, which would undeniably affect abortions, could potentially be an enormous victory for pro-life supporters as public funds could possibly be allocated to abortions. As Goodwin and Jasper suggests, there are many reasons for the emersion of a social movement. Looking at the pro-choice movement, cultural and emotional approaches can best explain why this movement emerged. “Social movements are seen as efforts to control the direction of social change largely by controlling a society’s symbols and self-understandings” (Goodwin & Jasper 2009: 13). Pro-life supporters and individuals contributing to its social movement attempt to change the direction of social change by limiting the government’s involvement concerning a woman and her decision to terminate a pregnancy.
REFERENCES
American civil liberties union. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
Goodwin, J, & Jasper, J. (2009). The Social movements reader. Maldon, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
National abortion federation. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
Naral pro-choice america. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/
Staggenborg, S. (1991). The Pro-choice movement: organization and activism in the abortion conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
