Roe Was Meant to be the Floor, not the Ceiling
It’s been 37 years since the Supreme Court ruled
that a woman had a constitutional right to obtain an abortion, and not
a day has gone by that someone, somewhere attempted to whittle away
women’s access to that right. While the legality of abortion seems safe
enough for the moment, the reality of accessing abortion is not
promising. In 1973, the promise of Roe v. Wade was it would give women
freedom to decide for themselves when and whether to bear children.
That promise has not been realized for many women.
In 1977, came the Hyde Amendment, a grossly unjust piece of
legislation that prohibits the use of federal funds in paying for
abortion services. This tells low-income women, women in the military,
women who work for the federal government, that they only have the
right to obtain an abortion if they can pay for it themselves.
Today, 24 states require a woman to wait, usually 24 hours, between
receiving counseling and obtaining an abortion; 17 states require women
to receive mandated counseling before obtaining an abortion (this
counseling often includes inaccurate information about links between
abortion and breast cancer, the long-term psychological impact of
abortion or includes information about fetal pain and the availability
of ultrasounds); 34 states require some form of parental involvement in
a minor’s decision to have an abortion (either through obtaining
consent or notifying one or more parent). All of these provisions are
intended to limit women’s access to abortion services.
The new health care reform, despite assurances that it would not
become a battleground for women’s reproductive health, threatens to
limit even more women’s access to abortion by placing further
restrictions on who can and cannot obtain abortions and how they will
be paid for.
Today, 87% of counties have no abortion provider, 25% of women have
to travel more than 50 miles to obtain an abortion. The number of
abortion providers around the country is declining, in part because
fewer medical schools teach the procedure, and partly because being an
abortion provider can be a very risky business. By a somewhat ironic
twist of fate, the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision also
marks the start of the trial of the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.
Crueler yet, it looks as though the defense is going to be allowed to
argue that Scott Roeder believed that he was acting out of deeply held
belief that by killing George Tiller he was preventing a greater
injustice. A great man was assassinated in front of his friends and
family, because he believed that women have the right to decide the
course of their lives, because he believed -and acted on that belief-
that abortion access is fundamental to a woman’s right to
self-determination. Dr. Tiller was a man of extraordinary courage who
worked every day to ensure women had access to these rights. And the
man who killed him is going to argue that what he did was justice.
Roe may be safe, but women’s access to abortion is not. While it is
far, far preferable to keep abortion legal, we have to also recognize
that Roe was meant to be the foundation of creating reproductive
justice. Legal abortion is the minimum of what we need for women to
fully realize their rights and potential as human beings. Roe was not
ever meant to be the pinnacle of achievement for women’ rights and
women’s health. So, let’s celebrate this anniversary for what it is: a
call to action to realize reproductive justice for all women.
Repeal Hyde.
Create Health Reform that meets all women’s reproductive health needs.
Stop treating abortion as a taboo. It is a safe medical procedure that saves women’s lives.
If Roe could have her way she wolf have this verdict overturned. SHe has openly declared how wrong she was in pursuing this case. You foundation is not what you are claiming it to be.
SHe has openly declared how wrong she was in pursuing this case.
Roe is entitled to make a living just like anybody else.
"Roe" chose to pursue the case, it is her right to regret her decision later, but it does not change that fact that the Supreme Court decided that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body. It was the legal decision that creates the foundation for reproductive justice, not Roe's feelings about it.
You Say,
"34 states require some form of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion (either through obtaining consent or notifying one or more parent). All of these provisions are intended to limit women’s access to abortion services."
I say,
"There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. There is something wrong with a minor making the choice without adult guidance...specifically without parental guidance". Now I do admit there is an exception to every rule. So, I also stand on the idea that our laws should be designed for these exceptions.
I do admit,
"A surprise pregnancy can be an embarrassing, and frightful event, especially for an underage child and not every teenager will have loving family that will guide them respectfully through the process". Are we talking about woman rights or parental rights? There are a lot of valid reasons to have an abortion. There are just as many invalid reasons to have an abortion.
I do not believe, an abortion should be used as standard birth control which may allow a woman to have repeated abortion of a healthy pregnancy. What we are talking about is woman health issues. This could be dangerous to a woman's health. It should not just be a woman's right, it should be a parental right with the pregnant woman, or girl having the most influence regarding the choice. Upon that statement made.. I urge you to consider a parent should have the trusted right to legally inspire thier child to do what is best. I personally believe it is what ever parent should be blessed upon this earth to do. More importantly by God given design a parent may live with their child being apart of their life for the rest of their life. So, it is the parent who will learn, grow, and live with their child through triumphs, serious regrets and mistakes. A counselor may only be in a child’s life for the moment. To give a child an abortion without allowing the parent to guide their young impressionable child may be just plan wrong. See, I do not believe a young pregnant girl is always a woman. Hugs to you.
The problem is REQUIRING parental involvement. For the most part, young women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy will go to a trusted adult to discuss her options. Parental involvement laws do not protect young women - they endanger the young women who are in most need of protection: those who cannot talk to their parents about such issues.
No one argues that a young women shouldn't talk to her parents or doesn't need some kind of parental support. But you can't legislate good family communication. These laws serve only one purpose: to restrict access to abortion.
