The issue of abortion in the United States is a highly charged issue with significant political and ethical debate.
Legal aspects
The prevailing legal opinion on abortion in the United States today, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal up to the moment of birth, if a woman can find a doctor willing to perform the procedure. The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued after extensive hearings on the Human Life Federalism Ammendment (proposed by Senators Hatch and Eagleton), concluded:
- "Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6
U.S. courts have upheld abortion, which may only be limited by the states in certain specific ways, such as parental notification for minors, or right to know laws which require the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to treatment.
Much of the ensuing debate has been in determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and thereby requiring protection of the state), or under the control of the mother. The advent of medical technology has enhanced the ability of a fetus to live outside the womb from 28 weeks old down towards 24 weeks making the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated.
Though abortion is legal in many Western European countries, the procedure is more widely available in the United States. U.S. abortion law, in terms of how late an abortion may take place, is far more permissive than that of other nations such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, for example. For instance, in France, unless the fetus is severely deformed or the mother's health is at risk, any abortion after the first trimester is illegal. Canada is more permissive, granting abortion on demand, while Australia restricts it far more.
Abortion Statistics
Because reporting of abortions is not mandatory, statistics are of varying reliability. The most reliable and consistent statistics come from the Centers For Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute .
Number of abortions in United States
-
Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1996
- Pecentage of abortions occurring:
- By the end of the first twelve weeks - 90%
- After twenty-four weeks - 600 (<1%)
- After twenty-seven weeks - 327 (<0.5%)
- Source: Center for Disease Control (US Government), MWWR, December 1994
- Number of abortions: 1,500,000:
- By the end of first twelve weeks - 88.8%
- Between thirteen to twenty weeks - 10.0%
- After twenty-two weeks - 1.2%
When women have abortions (in weeks)
-
Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1998
Reasons for abortions
Abortion before Roe
There were few laws on abortion in the United States at independence. In some cases, it was governed by English common law, which found abortion to be legally and ethically acceptable if occurring before 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt. Laws against abortion began to appear in the 1820s. Connecticut outlawed post-quickening abortions in 1821, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. Many of the early laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure. Indeed, many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion, favoring birth control instead.
The movement accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900, abortion was all but illegal in every state. Some states did include provisos allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the mother's life or pregnancies due to rape or incest. Abortions continued to occur, however, and increasingly became readily available. Illegal abortions were often unsafe, however, and led to 20% of all pregnancy-related hospital admissions in New York and California by one estimate.
Colorado was the first state to liberalize its laws, allowing abortions to take place legally in cases of rape, incest or permanent mental or physical disability in the child or mother in 1967. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy on demand. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the mother, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch . The court upheld the law, deeming that 'health' meant 'psychological and physical well-being,' essentially allowing abortion on demand. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama allowed abortions in cases of the mother's physical health. Thirty-one states still allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only.
Landmark case - Roe v. Wade
In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy. In its opinion it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found that right implied by the Constitution. Hence, the court held that a first-trimester embryo or fetus carried by a woman falls within her right to determine for herself, privately, what is to occur with her own body. The court further ruled that the state could intervene to restrict abortion in the second trimester of development and could outlaw it altogether in the third trimester (about 4/5 of U.S. states forbid third-trimester abortion except as necessary for the mother's health).
A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.
The 1973 Companion case to Roe, Doe vs. Bolton, expanded the right to abortion in the United States up to the moment of birth if her doctor "in his best clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health." However, this definition of "health" allowed any doctor willing to perform a late-term abortion the legal option to do so, thereby removing the trimester requirements of Roe, although they were not officially overturned until 1992.
The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe's strict trimester formula, and emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, rather than a generalized right to privacy. Advancements in medical technology, expected to continue, meant that a fetus might be considered viable, and thus have some basis of a right to life, at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 that was more common at the time Roe was decided. For this reason, the old trimester formula was ruled obsolete, with a new focus on viability of the fetus.
Currently in the United States 50% of all abortions are performed in the first eight weeks of pregnancy and 89% in the first twelve weeks. There were 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in the United States in 2001-02; the highest rate was 29.3 per 1,000 in 1980-81.
The "Jane Roe" of the landmark Roe v. Wade lawsuit, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, later became a strong advocate of the Pro-life movement. McCorvey claims she became the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff who they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.
In the United States the issue has become deeply politicized: in 2002, 84% of state Democratic platforms supported abortion while 88% of state Republican platforms opposed it. This divergence also led to the (currently defunct) Moral Majority having an increasingly strong role in the Republican Party. This opposition has been extended under the Foreign Assistance Act: in 1973 Jesse Helms introduced an amendment banning the use of aid money to promote abortion overseas, and in 1984 the so-called Mexico City Policy prohibited financial support to any overseas organization that performed or promoted abortions. The "Mexico City Policy" was revoked by President Bill Clinton and subsequently reinstated by President George W. Bush. Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill and the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003).
Legislative developments
Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of so-called "partial-birth" abortions. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Subsequent Congressional attempts at overriding the veto were unsuccessful.
On October 2, 2003, with a vote of 281-142, the House again approved a measure banning the procedure called the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760). Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure cannot be prosecuted under the measure. The measure contains an exemption to save a woman's life; it does not permit the procedure unless her life is threatened. On October 21, 2003, the United States Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 64-34, with a number of Democrats joining in support. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, but a federal judge blocked its enforcement in several states just a few hours after it became public law.
Interestingly in contrast the government of Quebec in Canada is currently actively searching for a Doctor who will perform a third term abortion. At the present time unless the pregnancy is a large risk to the mother's health there is no doctor in Quebec that will perform a third term abortion and the province needs to send patients requiring one to the US. The statistics on those requiring third term abortions in Quebec have shown that they are often the most disadvantaged. As Quebec is generally the most liberal regarding abortion rights it is likely that there is difficulty getting a third term abortion anywhere in Canada despite the fact that there are no laws whatsoever banning it, while it is available in the US, although this right is being reduced, by legislative developments. See Abortion in Canada. This suggests however that legislation is not the only factor that effects access to abortion for women.
Several federal courts are examining the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California struck it down on June 2, 2004 on three grounds:
- It places an 'undue burden' (i.e., "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.") on women seeking abortion.
- Its language is unconstitutionally vague.
- It lacks constitutionally-required provisions to preserve women's health (the law only provides for cases in which a woman's life is at risk).
Similar decisions are expected from federal courts of Nebraska and New York.
In Judge Hamilton's decision, some concerns over nomenclature were also raised. Not the term favored by abortion practitioners, "partial-birth" abortions are often confused with third-trimester abortions, specifically the procedure known by abortion practitioners as intact dilation and extraction (intact D&X). Intact dilation and extraction often involves cases of wanted pregnancies in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus, in which the head of a fetus may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of an adult skull. This condition also very often causes fetal death or fetal mental retardation. Furthermore, an attempt to give birth to such a fetus is often fatal for women. Hydrocephalus is usually not discovered until the second trimester, and many say the best medical route to take is a late-term abortion.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, commonly known as "Laci and Conner's Law" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004, allowing two charges to be filed against someone who kills a pregnant mother (one for the mother and the one for the fetus). It specifically bans charges against the mother and/or doctor relating to abortion procedures. Nevertheless, it has generated much controversy among right-to-abortion advocates. They view it as a potential step in the direction of banning abortion.
In 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Abortion Federation , and other abortion rights groups planned to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Courts have struck down several similar state statutes.
Opposition to abortion
Religious opposition
Abortion is strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church which considers the question a "foundational issue." This position is based on the beliefs that [1] human life is sacred and [2] life begins at conception. Participation by a Catholic in an abortion subjects one to automatic excommunication and is considered a mortal sin. Many fundamentalist protestant churches join in this opposition. Motivated by this and similar issues some religious leaders have encouraged involvement by members of their congregations in political activity which advocates restrictions on abortion, supports or opposes candidates for office based on their position on the issue, and as an ultimate goal, overturning of Roe v. Wade Other religious actions include the erection of Pro-Life memorials on church property, prayer, and fasting as a sacrifice offered up to "protect the lives of the unborn." .
Pro-Life activism
In the 1980s and 1990s, many opponents of legal abortion who had become frustrated with the apparent political impossibility of outlawing it turned instead to direct confrontations with abortion providers and women seeking abortions. The organization Operation Rescue carried out organized picketings , occupations, and blockades of abortion clinics, in which hundreds of pro-life activists would surround clinics in an attempt to shut them down.
Operation Rescue went bankrupt after losing a RICO lawsuit challenging its tactics, and many of its tactics were specifically outlawed by the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act , known as the "FACE Act" or "Access Act".[1] This led to a split among anti-abortion activists, with some continuing to picket and provide sidewalk counseling within the limits of the FACE Act, and a small minority turning to violence . The activities of anti-abortion activists were moderated following the 2000 election of President George W. Bush, whose outspoken opposition to abortion gave new hope to political anti-abortion efforts, as well as the highly visible arrests and convictions of several violent anti-abortion extremists.
Other
This information is being put under "other" because it does not seem that many in the pro-life movement would support taking life of those who perform abortions. However a tiny fringe element does support this, and a number of doctors have been shot.
It is believed that some of these shootings were perpetrated by an American sniper, James Kopp, who has shot several doctors in the United States. James Kopp has been charged with the killing of Dr. Slepian and with the shooting of a Canadian, Dr. Short. He is the major suspect in shootings of two other Canadian doctors who performed abortions. Barnett Slepian of Amherst, New York, was shot and killed on October 23, 1998.
The shootings occurred around November 11th which is the day that Pro-life supporters gather to remember the souls of the fetuses that have been aborted. For more information on Canadian shootings please see the Abortion in Canada page under other.
Other impediments to access to abortion and differences in access
Because of the nature of the split between Federal and State law access to abortion continues to vary by State and from area to area within States. And it is not just access to the procedure that can vary from area to area the ability to have a clinic that will provide abortions can be made very difficult. For example in one area where there was a clinic that wanted to start it was ruled that they could set up a clinic (based on Federal law) but that they could not use the water mains or the sewers, effectively making it almost impossible to set up a clinic.
There are also issues of access based on income. Many federal and state health programs on which poor women rely on for their health care do not cover abortions. Also the costs of abortions can vary widely. One company will provide RU486 which induces a chemical abortion if one does not live near one of the 60 clinics that have access to it in the US, but will charge $600. Therefore if you are a person with no problems in accessing the money needed for an abortion it is much easier to obtain an abortion resulting in unequal access between American women
Another way that access to abortion differs is based on race and disability. There are already statistics which show that women who are not white or who have disabilities have a much easier time accessing abortion because of racism and ableism. For women of colour and women with disabilities the difficulty can be being allowed carrying a fetus to term and then being allowed to raise the child.
External links
Pro-choice links
Pro-life links
Last updated: 05-07-2005 04:09:48
Last updated: 05-07-2005 18:09:53
