Ethical Issues In Texas

In the news article “Abortion: Every Woman’s Rights” Sharon Smith wrote an article about women’s rights to get abortions prior to the hearing of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey court case, “which threatened to severely restrict women access to abortion” (Smith). Women wanted reproductive control over their lives and felt that they were not equal to men no matter what advances they got at work and how high their level of education was. The women’s right movement wanted women to have the choice of abortion for all women, the rich and the poor. In the US, thirty- seven states did not provide

Let’s talk about the events that led up to the court case being filed. The case involved an unmarried pregnant woman, born Norma Leah Nelson on September 22, 1947, in the bayou country of Lettesworth, Louisiana who was at the time identified only as Jane Roe in order to maintain her anonymity but who has since publicly identified herself as Norma McCorvey. McCorvey, a resident of Texas, wanted to have an abortion, but the existing state law prevented her from doing so. She filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of herself and all other pregnant women. The suit sought to have the Texas abortion law declared unconstitutional

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

In the article “Defending Choice, Yet Again: An Unapologetic Defense of Abortion Rights-- and About Time,” written by Lindsay Beyerstein in The American Prospect, abortion and the reason chose to be Pro Choice are addressed. Many people throughout life can overcome the question, is abortion right? The only problem is no one can never give the reason for yes or no. The information provided in this article shows of ways that people should look back and reevaluate their decision on thinking that abortion is wrong. It has been detected that in many places recently, “Abortion access has decreased dramatically in Texas since the state’s restrictive anti-choice law went into effect in 2013” (Beyerstein). Also it is described how, “...Texas

After examining the power one lobbyist can have in the Texas government, it is appropriate to look at the enormity of what a corporation who specializes in lobbying efforts is capable of. The company being examined is called Cassidy and Associates. Cassidy came into the forefront of Texas politics, when in 2006 Carol Strayhorn, the comptroller announced the state of Texas "would be suspending payments to a Washington lobbying firm hired by Rick Perry, called Cassidy and Associates" (Zeller 2006). The reason this is a seemingly bold move by the comptroller is because of how powerful this company is. In 1999, "Cassidy and Associates billed their clients 19.8 million dollars, making them the biggest-grossing lobbying firm in the nation"

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

Abortion, one of the most controversial topics mentioned in this county, especially the state of Texas, continues to be scrutinized from both sides of the spectrum. In 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme court ruled that abortion would be legalized on a federal level, however, many states including Texas have placed restrictions on the procedure. The question here should not be based on a moral standard, but rather, what is the right of the women and her say in her body. This essay will review both views on abortion along with the laws on abortion here in Texas.

In Texas, a large cultural controversy has resurfaced. State lawmakers want to introduce a new set of guidelines which would essentially limit the availability of abortions to Texan women. This debate is very clearly divided into two opposing sides: pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life side wants to pass this law, which says that clinics must be held to hospital grade standards and doctors must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion takes place. According to the pro-choice side and abortion clinicians themselves, “the regulations [are] expensive, unnecessary and intended to put many [offices] out of business” (nytimes). This case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that

The Texas anti-abortion law has taken the country’s attention by storm. It is an issue on many different woman’s minds, especially those who live in the state of Texas. The new laws are forcing many woman to have to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion and medical care. This includes woman who needs abortions due to preexisting medical conditions and those who are carrying fetuses which are diseased and are expected not to be born as healthy babies. The Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz are leading the fight for the abortion laws to become permanent, laws that are considered the strictest abortion laws that this country has ever seen.

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

In the past few decades, the issue of abortion rights has created debates and controversy within the United States. Those who criticize the act of abortion – pro-life – argue that the act of abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. Those who support the legalization of abortion – pro-choice – argues women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in all states – a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade. However, it has become increasingly common for states to create anti-abortion laws, which makes it more difficult to have an abortion. In 2014, Missouri state representative Rick Brattin proposed H.B.131, a house bill that would require women to receive a written consent from the biological father in order to have an abortion. This bill serves to prevent women from having an abortion.

Carol Everett once said “The product abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the women at a crisis time in her life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund, but it is too late.” Abortion is one of the most controversial topics amongst not only politicians but also every human being alive; rather they are pro-choice or pro-life. I am personally in between; I believe that is the choice of that particular woman. We can not as a society decide the choices of others, especially if it is not a written law. But also I believe that it is murder. It was in 1973 when the Roe v Wade case abolished all laws prohibiting abortion.

To deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy is akin to robbing her of any ability to make decisions about her body, her self, and her future. The woman is effectively forced, against her will, to assume an identity and a future that she normally would have avoided. This type of coersion can permanently damage a persons emotional and psychological health. The one thing that makes each of us an individual is our decision making freedom and powers regarding our own future and actions. But when we are robbed of our ability to make our own decisions about our future, our self, and our identity, then we are robbed of our most essential and valuable treasure…our self. If a woman wishes to obtain an early term abortion…to terminate a pregnancy…then she must be allowed to choose this option. If she id denied an abortion, then both her and the future child will suffer tremendously. Please stop viewing abortion as something that you should have sole control over. A person’s body is their own, not yours. It is threatening and invasive when others attempt to direct the lives of their peers. Rather supporting the tyrannical idea of forced childbirth, perhaps you ought to consider the more moderate concept that all people should be able to choose the future of their bodies and reproductive functions. I advocate neither abortion nor

Before women had rights to decide whether they could keep their baby, some states didn’t allow abortion, therefore requiring women to give birth to their child. In today’s current issues, abortion is still a controversial subject with millions of people supporting it or not supporting it. Every woman has the right to make changes to her own physical body, and those rights should not be taken away, according to the constitution. In the very famous case in 1973, “Roe v. Wade”, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. In the article, “Roe’s Pro-Life Legacy”, it is explained how after this movement, the right to abortion, lives have changed and led to lower abortion rates (Sheilds 2013.)