Use discount code: LoveMyDaddy and get 19% OFF your order! Hurry up! Get your Father’s Day Gift from ExclusivePapers.com!
1. Reproductive rights have become a national policy. Reproductive legislation is subject to a rather large amount of changes. A person who was probably the most zealous women health rights activist was Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Planned Parenthood project. Comstock laws proclaiming contraception illegal must have been one of the reasons which made Sanger take action. Margaret grew up surrounded by women who could not control their reproduction due to governmental interference into this delicate sphere. Sanger was convinced that every female had a right to know all about contraception, which urged her endeavors. The first fruit were reaped in 1936 when federal Comstock laws started to liberalize. Not only legal procedures developed birth control regulations, but also medical progress: in 1960s appeared first pills. Sanger was replaced by consistent successors. Thalidomide catastrophe and epidemic of rubella also secured steady advancement of movement for legal abortions. The endeavors of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson also contributed to conscious approach to birth. President Richard Nixon saw birth control as a national priority. In 1970 Title X of the Public Health Service Act was passed. According to it contraceptives were made available regardless of financial situation of citizens. In early 1970s focus was put on sexual education and the problem of teen pregnancy. Hyde amendment (1979) banned spending federal budget on abortions for women from low-income class, certainly taking a step back in birth control movement. 1980s are distinguished by growth of abortion-opposing moods. Administration of Bush continued the anti-family planning policies which had begun in the Reagan’s years. The next President - Bill Clinton contributed to the movement vetoing two federal abortion bans. After a tide of terrorist actions against abortion activists Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. President George W. Bush canceled these freedoms; the subsequent years were characterized by censoring and restricting. In 2003, President Bush signed the abortion ban law. Planned Parenthood began a determined campaign against it and finally defeated the ban in 2006. A new dawn for reproductive health movement began with the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Activists unite with different media to state their opinions. The situation is becoming more difficult with the beginning of a health care reform. In October 2011 Planned Parenthood Global program was launched. Despite challenges of modern times, Planned Parenthood health centers are trying to make this generation the healthiest ever.
Therefore, since 1930s birth control movement have come through different stages of development, faced strict governmental policies and violent disapproval, but it still manages to get stronger and appeals to more and more people. Of course, Planned Parenthood sees the legislation prohibiting abortion and favoring any group distinctions as non-beneficial for women.
2. Some governmental measures seem to be designed to make abortion a less attractive alternative. Medical and sanitary restrictions for places to perform this procedure in Kansas deprive hundreds of clinics of the right to do so, especially small freestanding ones. It considerably lowers the percentage of later-term abortions. Experts of this field claim that abortions are inevitable, and any prohibitions, including, for instance, unreasonable cost of their performing, will lead to illegal procedures due to financial impossibility of some families to pay for the legal ones. And unwanted results damaging nation’s reproductive health should probably be kept in mind while introducing any new legislation. The main aim of government, therefore, is to provide people with knowledge and necessary services to prevent unwanted pregnancy, fight the cause and not the effect. States passing such laws probably see only one side of a problem. They may want to increase birth rates and render a service to conventional and conservative strata of citizens. But those who belong to Planned Parenthood refuse to see it as a justification. The same goes with a whole new generation of trained abortion providers. Liberal society built on the ground of a person’s freedoms, including freedom of choice, feels there might be an increasing need in such experts. During their training it is emphasized that they are not required to perform abortions, although most of such medical students have made a conscious choice. They choose providing professional help to those who need it. If the situation urges, it is better to resort to qualified medical aid than to risk any possible damage by self-treatment or similar unwarranted methods. They wish the financial and social situation did not make women pass through this procedure again and again. That is why state government should really pay attention to prevention, so that later there would be no need for prohibition. The main thing is that at least abortions are not a forbidden topic they used to be at the beginning of the century.
3. Freedom of choice has always been the American pride and privilege. Any prohibitions may inflict serious damage. Making abortions illegal is a threat to human rights, and particularly women’s rights. The number of unwanted pregnancies and births is high. Not all the mothers are capable of providing their children with all the necessary conditions. A harsh reality is that some women should not become mothers in the first place. Here belong those who do not value their own life and health, automatically increasing the chances of giving birth to defected children.
Roe v. Wade was a legal case that turned out to be crucial to the whole birth planning movement. Having taken place in 1973, it is still one of the greatest achievements of the day. This decision acknowledged access to abortion being a part of a right to privacy, granted by constitution, and the fact that only certain states are able to limit it. After the legal procedure it was stated that a woman must have the right to decide whether to resort to abortion or not, but it should also comply with two major requirements and priorities of the situation: mother’s health and baby’s health. Roe v. Wade case was also a starting point of a social debate regarding abortions: pro-choice and pro-life rivaling camps stem from it. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, as survey shows, most of the states would have “trigger” laws – bans on abortion, which is a result of the established practice and state policy. A lot would also depend on the government in power. Social life would experience some major changes. Sexual behavior might become more cautious, so that after some time unintended pregnancies would reduce. But there still would be those who would be made to go through abortions. So, considering all the factors, legality of abortions is a better option.
Some zealously support their privacy, the others connect abortion with killing only. But both pro-choice and pro-life campers agree about one thing: it would be better if less abortions were made.