Abortion Primer

Abortion
An abortion is a medical or surgical procedure that ends a pregnancy. Throughout history, differences over moral and religious values have made abortion a highly controversial issue. The procedure has been legal in the United States since 1973, but it remains controversial with divergent views on such questions as when human life begins, the rights a woman has over her own body, and government interference in the private lives of individuals.
The Abortion Controversy
The two factions involved in this controversy are poles apart in their views on abortion: whereas the pro-choice movement contends that a woman's right to abortion is absolute, the pro-life movement asserts that a fetus's right to life is indisputable. Both sides rely on legal, scientific, and human rights arguments to support their arguments.
Behind this debate is the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Roe was based in part on the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy, which the Court ruled was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Even after viability, however, when the fetus could survive outside of the womb, the Court ruled that states must allow abortions that could save women's lives. In 1992 the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, maintaining a woman's fundamental right to abortion.
Abortion rights advocates have praised Roe and Casey for recognizing that a woman's right to control her body takes precedence over a fetus's right to life. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out, "Enforcement of the idea that the fetus has legal rights superseding those of the woman who carries it would make pregnant women second-class citizens with fewer rights, and more obligations, than others." Just as it would be unthinkable to force someone to use their body to donate organs to preserve the life of a living person, pro-choice organizations stress that it would be absurd to allow a fetus to use a woman's body as a life-support system without her consent.
Members of the pro-life movement refute these arguments, however, arguing that Roe and Casey blatantly ignore the fetus's basic human rights. Critics of these rulings assert that the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property," does not give a woman the right to abort her fetus.
Abortion foes also argue that a woman's control over her body is not an absolute right. While a woman has power over her body and can choose how she would like to use it, laws can restrict her control when it infringes on the rights of others. As Frederica Mathewes-Green, an author, columnist for Christianity Today, and commentator for National Public Radio, states, "It is because I still believe so strongly in the right of a woman to protect her body that I now oppose abortion. That right must begin when her body begins, and it must be hers no matter where she lives---even if she lives in her mother's womb."
Most importantly, members of the pro-life movement contend that a fetus is indeed a separate, living human being whose rights begin in the womb and extend after birth. Humanist and ethicist Diana Brown rejects the pro-choice claim that a fetus "is merely part of the mother's body and is entirely hers to dispose of.... Since the fetus is, however, genetically distinct from the mother, the latter position is hard to sustain."
Despite the longtime debate between members of the pro-choice and pro-life movements, the controversy over rights remains unresolved.
Roe v. Wade Ignored the Fundamental Fact that Abortion Kills the Unborn
Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, was a knee-jerk reaction to the feminist era that heralded in a new code of sexual conduct. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court was faced with new realities--women were entering the workforce and demanding equal rights. The Supreme Court invented a theoretical right to privacy--interpreted as the right to exercise control over one's body (as well as a bogus right to sexual privacy)--in an effort to appease a splinter group of abortion-rights activists. So shaky was the Court's interpretation of the word liberty to include the right to destroy human fetuses, that Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his dissenting Roe v. Wadeopinion, wrote, "To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."
There are two problems with abortion. First, the woman who considers an abortion is a friend, roommate, boss, wife, sister, or neighbor to someone. She finds herself in a desperate, untenable situation where it seems the only solution is to have an abortion. Second, no matter how much one empathizes with her, abortion is not a "choice"; it is the killing of an unborn human life. Since it is immoral to own another human being and to act as if some humans are not fully human because it serves some economic purpose, abortion runs contrary to democratic principles, which protect equality and human life.
When Roe v. Wade made women's reproductive issues a private matter, the decision dismantled church and community services that helped women "choose" to have a baby. Before 1973 choice meant adoption: adoptive parents chose to have a child. After 1973 "choice" meant abortion. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was not illegal in this country. Most of the fifty states had statutes that permitted a physician to make the medical decision to perform an abortion when the mother's physical or mental health was in jeopardy. To most people these situations would include the cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Roe v. Wade went beyond the parameters of mother's health and allowed for abortions if the child was "unwanted for anyone or more of a variety of reasons--convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy . . . for any reason or for no reason at all . . . any woman is entitled to an abortion," contended Justice Byron R. White in his opinion.
Roe v. Wade broke down pregnancy into three stages or trimesters. Before 1973 life was considered to begin at the moment of conception. Either a woman was pregnant or she was not. There were no degrees of pregnancy: no one was a "little" pregnant, as no one person is a "little" dead. The Court ruled that as long as the unborn baby was not viable, that is, it could not live outside the mother's womb, it was okay to abort.
Roe v. Wade protected the rights of women to have control over their own bodies
The Roe v. Wade decision (January 1973) legitimized what had previously been almost universally condemned: the practice of abortion. The U.S Supreme Court, by a seven-to-two vote, struck down all state laws that restricted a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and granted to the states only very limited regulatory rights during the second trimester (the state must have a compelling interest in order to infringe upon a woman's right to an abortion during the second trimester). The makeup of women seeking abortions also changed from primarily single, poor black women to rich, married, white women.
In Roe the Court debated a challenge to a Texas antiabortion statute. Although the Court held that a fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment and thus is not protected thereby, it declared the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it did not strike the proper balance between the mother's protected right to privacy and the state's interests. Roe did not sanction abortion "by demand," as many of its critics maintain. In fact, Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger's concurring opinion stated that, "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand." In addition, Blackmun carefully articulated that privacy, not abortion, was a "fundamental right." Subsequent statutes dealing with the second trimester had to be carefully drafted so that any infringements on the mother's rights had to demonstrate compelling state interests. This concept meant that a state could seek to regulate abortion by insisting that any rights that a woman might have are overridden by the need to save human lives. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, laws that impinge on protected personal rights will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a "compelling state interest." Once it is shown that a law impinges upon a right, the burden is on the state to demonstrate that its interest is "compelling," leaving the Court to resolve the issue of whether the interest supersedes that right.
Millions of abortions have been performed since Roe was decided, and the United States ranks third in the world in the number of abortions carried out. Unsatisfied with the fact that women can still have abortions, some antiabortion activists have turned to more-violent protests. Undoubtedly, the abortion debate is far from over.
Roe v. Wade gave everyone the responsibility of thinking carefully about abortion
The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision superseded each state's right to determine the legality of abortion in most situations, as John E. Schwenkler explains. It also created a greater responsibility for everyone involved in the abortion debate---the pro-life side, the pro-choice side, the medical personnel who perform abortions and their support staff, and the women and girls who have abortions. When abortion was illegal, most did not consider it an option, and therefore it was not subject to debate. Now that it is legal, it is the duty of every person potentially impacted by the issue to examine its many components through the dual lenses of personal values and scientific fact, then arrive at a well-considered opinion.
The "common ground" movement highlights points on which both pro-life and pro-choice advocates can agree---for example that no woman should be forced to have an abortion---and emphasizes beginning from those commonalities to enter into a useful discussion as an alternative to virulent and sometimes violent battles. Says Frederica Mathewes-Green in U.S. Catholic, "It is possible to disagree with people without calling them baby-killers, without believing that they are monsters or fiends. It is possible to disagree in an agreeable way." Mathewes-Green continues, "Common ground does not mean compromise. ... In this case, common ground means something more like a demilitarized zone, a safe space where conversation and exploration can take place."
An informed decision requires access to all relevant facts. "When a fetus is diagnosed as disabled or `defective' in some way, few parents are offered a truly informed choice about their options," says Shelley Burtt. "The role of the medical practitioner is not to prescribe a course of action but to provide the necessary information for the patient to decide what he or she truly wants to do." Burtt describes a physician's failure on this front as a form of eugenics and states, "Physicians genuinely committed to patient autonomy in the context of genetic testing would not prejudge the worth or desirability of bearing a child whose genetic makeup was in some way abnormal. Instead, they would seek to ensure that parents truly understood what it meant to care for a child with special needs."
The right of an adult to make an informed decision regarding abortion is protected by Roe v. Wade, but not all pregnant females are adults. When a minor is pregnant, federal abortion laws intersect with state parental-involvement laws, which require that minors seeking an abortion obtain the consent of at least one parent. According to legislators Spencer Abraham and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, "Parental-involvement laws protect parents' rights to know about the important decisions that their children face." They cite a 1996 Gallup poll in which 74 percent of respondents supported the parental-consent requirement for minors seeking abortions, "Whatever one's position on abortion, every American should recognize the crucial role of parents in their minor child's decision whether or not to undergo an abortion."