America’s Tragic Abortion Debate
Published in Göterborgs Posten
(Sweden) on 22 January 2012
by Editorial (link to original)
The Republicans who argue against abortion are acting in ignorance. A ban does not minimize the number of abortions. Quite the reverse.
In the run-up to the U.S. presidential elections, one of the questions that always comes into the limelight is what abortion legislation ought to look like. Since 1973, when the U.S.' highest court, in the verdict of Roe vs. Wade, established that abortion, according to the Constitution, falls under the protected right to a private life, all states have been duty-bound to allow women to terminate a pregnancy if they so wish.
The court’s decision was, however, not uncontroversial, and during the following 40 years, conservative powers in the United States have fought to tear up Roe vs. Wade and limit abortion rights. Nowadays, anti-abortionists are flourishing more than ever. Last year, a record number of proposals were put forward [by state legislatures] aimed at limiting abortions. Furthermore, the Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have all clearly expressed that they believe that life begins at conception.
As recently as the other week, Perry, the governor of Texas, rejoiced over the introduction of a new law that requires that women who wish to have an abortion be forced to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat as well as go through an ultrasound examination with a detailed description of the growing child. Even the sitting president, Barack Obama, who has visibly taken a stand for a woman's right to self-determination, has, in parallel with the growth of the anti-abortionist movement, had problems with handling questions such as how abortion and contraception should be financed and regulated.
While top American politicians argue against free abortion, the World Health Organization warns in a new report that illegal abortions around the world are increasing. Every year approximately 20 million unsafe abortions (those carried out by someone without any medical knowledge in a place where the most minimal medical criteria are not reached) are performed. The result is that tens of thousands of women lose their lives. Many leave motherless children who have little chance of surviving to adulthood without their primary caregiver. Hundreds of thousands of women are forced to live the rest of their lives with extensive and painful injuries after abortions that have gone wrong. One might ask oneself which of these inevitable consequences of prohibition is it that anti-abortionists consider to be so desirable. Anyone who seriously cares for women, as well as unborn children, would defend the right to abortion. The WHO report also shows that, as opposed to decreasing the number of dangerous illegal abortions, it is safe, legal abortions that decrease. Nations with liberal legislation on abortions are those with the lowest abortion rates. Anti-abortion laws are not just insulting to women; to advocate a ban is as ignorant as it is counterproductive. With the politics that the Republican presidential candidates represent, the United States risks falling to the levels of developing countries as far as female reproductive health is concerned, which is both remarkable and lamentable.
In the run-up to the U.S. presidential elections, one of the questions that always comes into the limelight is what abortion legislation ought to look like. Since 1973, when the U.S.' highest court, in the verdict of Roe vs. Wade, established that abortion, according to the Constitution, falls under the protected right to a private life, all states have been duty-bound to allow women to terminate a pregnancy if they so wish.
The court’s decision was, however, not uncontroversial, and during the following 40 years, conservative powers in the United States have fought to tear up Roe vs. Wade and limit abortion rights. Nowadays, anti-abortionists are flourishing more than ever. Last year, a record number of proposals were put forward [by state legislatures] aimed at limiting abortions. Furthermore, the Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have all clearly expressed that they believe that life begins at conception.
As recently as the other week, Perry, the governor of Texas, rejoiced over the introduction of a new law that requires that women who wish to have an abortion be forced to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat as well as go through an ultrasound examination with a detailed description of the growing child. Even the sitting president, Barack Obama, who has visibly taken a stand for a woman's right to self-determination, has, in parallel with the growth of the anti-abortionist movement, had problems with handling questions such as how abortion and contraception should be financed and regulated.
While top American politicians argue against free abortion, the World Health Organization warns in a new report that illegal abortions around the world are increasing. Every year approximately 20 million unsafe abortions (those carried out by someone without any medical knowledge in a place where the most minimal medical criteria are not reached) are performed. The result is that tens of thousands of women lose their lives. Many leave motherless children who have little chance of surviving to adulthood without their primary caregiver. Hundreds of thousands of women are forced to live the rest of their lives with extensive and painful injuries after abortions that have gone wrong. One might ask oneself which of these inevitable consequences of prohibition is it that anti-abortionists consider to be so desirable. Anyone who seriously cares for women, as well as unborn children, would defend the right to abortion. The WHO report also shows that, as opposed to decreasing the number of dangerous illegal abortions, it is safe, legal abortions that decrease. Nations with liberal legislation on abortions are those with the lowest abortion rates. Anti-abortion laws are not just insulting to women; to advocate a ban is as ignorant as it is counterproductive. With the politics that the Republican presidential candidates represent, the United States risks falling to the levels of developing countries as far as female reproductive health is concerned, which is both remarkable and lamentable.