Abortion in the United States is legal, via the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. Specifically, abortion is legal in all U.S. states, and every state has at least one abortion clinic. However, individual states can regulate/limit the use of abortion or create "trigger laws", which would make abortion illegal within the first and second trimesters if Roe were overturned by the US Supreme Court. Currently, 6 states have trigger laws and 3 other states have laws intending to criminalize abortion.
Current legal status nationwide
The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure.
The key, deliberated article of the U.S. Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that
The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued in 1983 after extensive hearings on the Human Life Amendment (proposed by Senators Orrin Hatch and Thomas Eagleton), stated:
One aspect of the legal abortion regime now in place has been determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and therefore subject to being protected by the state). In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks, approx. 196 days) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are a few weeks less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the woman's womb. These scientific achievements, while life-saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated. The youngest child thought to have survived a premature birth in the United States was Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age, approx. 153 days vs. possibly expected gestational period of 40 weeks, approx. 280 days).
In comparison to other developed countries, the procedure is more available in the United States in terms of how late the abortion can legally be performed. However, in terms of other aspects such as government funding, privacy for non-adults, or geographical access, some U.S. states are far more restrictive. In most European countries abortion on-demand is allowed only during the first trimester, with abortions during later stages of pregnancy being allowed only for specific reasons (e.g. physical or mental health reasons, risk of birth defects, if the woman was raped etc.). The reasons that can be invoked by a woman seeking an abortion after the first trimester vary by country, for instance, some countries, such as Denmark, provide a wide range of reasons, including social and economic ones.
There are no laws or restrictions regulating abortion in Canada, while the law on abortion in Australia varies by state/territory. In many countries the right to abortion has been legalized by respective parliaments, while in the U.S. the right to abortion has been deemed a part of a constitutional right to privacy by the Supreme Court.
Because of the split between federal and state law, legal access to abortion continues to vary somewhat by state. Geographic availability, however, varies dramatically, with 87 percent of U.S. counties having no abortion provider. Moreover, due to the Hyde Amendment, many state health programs which poor women rely on for their health care do not cover abortions; currently only 17 states (including California, Illinois and New York) offer or require such coverage.
The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe's strict trimester formula, but reemphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty and privacy protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Advancements in medical technology 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.
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 intact dilation and extraction, also commonly known as partial birth abortion. 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. Congressional supporters of the bill argue that a health exception would render the bill unenforceable, since the Doe v. Bolton decision defined "health" in vague terms, justifying any motive for obtaining an abortion. 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. 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 allow the procedure if the woman's 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. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on the procedure in the case Gonzales v. Carhart on April 18, 2007. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not conflict with previous Court decisions regarding abortion.
The decision marked the first time the court allowed a ban on any type of abortion since 1973. The swing vote, which came from moderate justice Anthony Kennedy, was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the two recent appointees, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
State regulatory initiatives regarding abortion
The following states have initiatives regarding abortion:
Colorado
The initiative was proposed jointly by Kristine Burton and Michael Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights. Colorado Amendment 48 was a proposed initiative to amend the definition of a person to "any human being from the moment of fertilization." On November 4, 2008, the initiative was turned down by 73.2% of the voters.
Kansas
Kansas lawmakers approved sweeping anti-abortion legislation (HB 2253) on April 6, 2013 that says life begins at fertilization, forbids abortion based on gender and bans Planned Parenthood from providing sex education in schools.
In 2015 Kansas became the first state to ban the dilation and evacuation procedure, a common second-trimester abortion procedure. But the new law was later struck down in January 2016 without ever having gone into effect.
Louisiana
On June 19, 2006, Governor Kathleen Blanco signed into law a ban on most forms of abortion (unless the life of the mother was in danger or her health would be permanently damaged) once it passed the state legislature. Although she felt exclusions for rape or incest would have "been reasonable," she felt she should not veto based on those reasons. The bill would only go into effect if the United States Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. Louisiana's measure would allow the prosecution of any person who performed or aided in an abortion. The penalties include up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $100,000.
Mississippi
On February 27, 2006, Mississippi's House Public Health Committee voted to approve a ban on abortion, and that bill died after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation.
On November 8, 2011, the Personhood amendment, to define personhood as beginning "at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof," was rejected by 55% of voters.
North Dakota
North Dakota's HB 1572, otherwise known as the Personhood of Children Act, was a bill in the North Dakota Legislature which aims to "provide equality and rights to all human beings at every stage of biological development". This step could eventually eliminate all types of abortion for nearly any reason in the state of North Dakota. It would allocate rights of "the pre-born, partially born." If it had passed, it would have likely been used to challenge Roe v. Wade.
This legislation, sponsored by State Representative Dan Ruby, passed the North Dakota House of Representatives on February 17, 2009 by a vote of 51-41. On April 3, 2009 the North Dakota Senate rejected HB 1572 in a 29 to 16 vote.
Oklahoma
In 2016, Oklahoma state legislators passed a bill to criminalize abortion for providers, potentially charging them with up to three years in prison. On May 20, 2016, Governor Mary Fallin vetoed the bill before it could become law, citing its wording as too vague to withstand a legal challenge.
South Dakota
In 2004, a bill outlawing abortion passed both houses of the legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor due to a technicality. The state's legislature subsequently passed five laws curtailing the legality of abortion in 2005. The majority of a legislative "task force" then issued a report recommending that the Legislature illegalize all abortions, which would lead to a challenge of the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade in the United States Supreme Court. A separate minority report criticizing the process and reaching different conclusions was also released.
In February 2006, the Legislature passed the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act, which was signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds on March 6, 2006. This law would have forbidden abortion under virtually every circumstance, including in cases of rape and incest. The law allowed "a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother." Physicians performing such procedures would have been required to "...make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child."
The act had specifically defined pregnancy as beginning at the point of conception rather than at implantation into the uterine wall (see beginning of pregnancy controversy), which might have meant that WHHLPA applied to emergency contraception and possibly all forms of hormonal contraception.
Several members of the South Dakota legislative majority, as well as Governor Rounds, acknowledged that the overt goal of WHHLPA was to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe per the recommendation of the task force (the Supreme Court at that time was shifting in a conservative direction, one that might have been more amenable to overturning Roe).
A referendum to repeal the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act was placed on ballot for the November 2006 statewide election due to a successful petition drive by the organization South Dakota Healthy Families. On May 30, over 38,000 petition signatures were filed, more than twice the 17,000 required to place a measure on the ballot. On November 7, WHHLPA was repealed by the South Dakota electorate; the vote was 56%-44% favoring repeal.
Texas
The Roe v. Wade case, tried in Texas, stands at the center of years of national debate about the issue of abortion. Henry Wade was serving as District Attorney of Dallas County at the time. In 2013, a bill restricting access to abortion was passed. Since the passage of the bill, abortion access in the state of Texas has declined substantially.
On August 29, 2014 .S. District Judge Lee Yeakel struck down as unconstitutional two provisions of Texas' omnibus anti-abortion bill, House Bill 2 that was to come into effect on September 1. The regulation would have closed about a dozen abortion clinics, leaving only eight places in Texas to get a legal abortion, all located in major cities. Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the state's regulation was unconstitutional and would have placed an undue burden on women, particularly on poor and rural women living in west Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.
State table
Bans of abortion
Limits on abortion
Protections of abortion
See also
- Abortion statistics in the United States
- Abortion by country
- Abortion and religion
- Abortion debate
- Types of abortion restrictions in the United States
Should there be Limitations of Abortion in Various States? Since the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its early 1973 historic decision in Roe v. Wade, the significant case overturned the different interpretations regarding abortion and made it legal in all the states. The phenomenon was perceived as a turning point in the reproductive rights of American women. Currently, various states have established different restrictions regarding the law legalizing abortion, which codify, regulate and limit whether, when as well as under what conditions a woman may embrace an abortion. Abortion hasbeen an ongoing topic for several years and is so much controversial,however, I will be focusing on certain limitations the states havemade on abortions and if they are acceptable or not such as: Post-viability, parentaladvisement, physical harm, rape andgestational Limit. Abortion is a crucial topic as it touches the life of women and there should be limit to post-viability abortion. While the Supreme Court’s decision legalized abortion, the limitation of post-viability abortion which many states articulate is plausible since it protects the life of women from dangers of late pregnancy termination. A pregnant woman who gets involved in the procedure of late termination of pregnancy risks acquiring infections, heavy bleeding, perforated uterus which can cause infertility and barrenness.However, the post viability abortion should only be allowed for woman who faces great health risks as a result of the pregnancy. For instance, in Michigan there is the Law which allows a post-viability abortion under the condition that the woman’s life is threatened and some laws in numerous other states prohibit abortion at a particular stage in gestation period. In the recent past, many states have sanctioned laws whichprohibit abortion at twenty weeks’ post-fertilization, before viability, founded on the unauthentic claim that an unborn child can feel agony at that stage during pregnancy. Dating a gestation period from conception goes in contradiction of agreement. When deliberating matters regarding pregnancy, medical professionals normally date a gestation period from the day one of the woman’s final menstrual period, since that is the date many women can identify (Levine et al. 199). Conception usually occurs two weeks just after the day of a woman’s final menstrual cycle. Consequently, a pregnancy of usual gestational period is regarded to last roughly forty weeks from the commencement of a woman’s preceding menstrual cycleâ€"or thirty-eight weeks’ post-fertilization. Therefore, the limit for abortion associated with post viability is implausible under the situation whena pregnancy poses danger to the health of a woman. However, I think the limit of post viability abortion is plausible since it protects the life of a pregnant woman. Similarly, gestational limitswhich restricts abortion twenty weeks after conception is plausible because it protects the previous lives of the pregnant woman and the unborn child.Fetus becomes viable after twenty weeks and any procedure to terminate pregnancy after this period can lead to death or the fetus, the mother or both. But when the fetus poses health risks to the pregnant woman, she should allowed to under the pregnancy termination procedure to save her life.However, physician as well as health organization requirementslimits, which restrict abortion among women in various states should applied under such circumstance. For example, the abortion to should be carried out by a qualified and licensed medical doctor or physician. Furthermore an abortion to be carried out in a hospital after a definite stage in the pregnancy, and there must be the involvement of a second medical doctor after a definite stage during pregnancy period (Upadhyay et al. 1687). On the other hand, public funding limit which involvesrestriction on the utilization ofgovernment’s coffers to pay for all medically indispensable abortions for Medicaid members should be thrown out. Some states may not pay for all medical bill for women without Medicaid coverageundergoing pregnancy termination test (Erdman 29). The government should fund abortion procedures which help save the life of a pregnant woman. However, some states including the District of Columbia forbid the use of public funds to carter for the abortion procedures. While such limitations may be justified, great consideration should be put on the exception ofthose circumstances when federal coffers are obtainable and where the woman’s life is in jeopardy or the pregnancy is the consequence of incest or rape. Nonetheless, contrary to federal compulsory conditions, South Dakota restricts funding to circumstances of life jeopardy only. Parental consent requires that either or both parents grant permission to the pregnancy termination procedure. This limitation on abortion is essential especially when the case involves a juvenile and there is a need to inform either or both the parents. This helps avoid such cases where a juvenile seek abortion without the knowledge of their parents (Levine et al. 199).
On the other hand, State-Mandated Counseling is another limit concerning pregnancy termination procedure. The limitationarticulates that women should go through counseling session before an abortion that entails information regarding the alleged connection between breast cancer and abortion. This limitation is psychologically important and plausible because it helps prepare pregnant women for post abortion emotional issues. Also, the possibility of a fetus to undergo pain and agony causes long-lasting mental health impacts for the woman and thus the counseling sessions alleviate the adverse effects(Upadhyay et al. 1689). Furthermore, permitting health care organizations to decline to perform procedures of abortions while a pregnant mother is at risk of losing her life because of the pregnancy is intolerable. However, waiting Periods also limits abortion require a woman seeking pregnancy termination procedures to wait an indicated period of time. I think the waiting periods may affect health of a pregnant woman especially when the pregnancy termination procedure should be performed promptly. Typically, a pregnant woman can wait for twenty-fourhours, between when she goes through counseling and the procedure is carried out (Levine et al. 200).
The above limits to abortion rights have led to different effects. A number of research studies have established that parental involvement Actsdecrease the number of preganancy termination procedures being carried out on minors within a particular state. For example, research studies utilizing time series cross-sectional statistics articulate that parental involvement laws decrease in-state rates of abortion for minors in the United States of America from thirteen percent to nineteen percent. On the other hand, case studies involving individual states also show that parental involvement Acts are associated with drops in in-state rates of abortion (Upadhyay et al. 1690). Nevertheless, no accord exists regarding whether these parental involvement Acts result in general decreases in the rates of abortions carried out on juveniles. Some research studies discover that juvenile abortion tendencies in states that passed these laws are comparable to minor abortion tendencies in other states. Correspondingly, other research studies discover evidence that supports the fact that in-state abortion reductions are affected by out-of-state risesconversely, there exist other research studies that discover that comparatively few juvenilesavoid these laws by seeking abortions in adjacent states. Some studies also discoverimmediateupsurges in the juvenile birth rate subsequent to these laws being sanctioned. The absence of functional deliberation in the healthcare sector signifies a threat to the profession and the America society, since many stakeholders thereby distance themselves from the communities they attend to, endangering the credibility as well as the trust placed in health care professions. At this point in time one frequently perceive that restrain to pregnancy termination procedures is founded on dogmatic religious beliefs which have no chance in articulating public policy in an earthly society. Therefore, the phenomenon is a debatable point since the legal and social structures have religious backgrounds difficult to unravel fully from the worldly perspectives. All the above circumstances including time-based sets such as temporal measurements such as gestational age, trimesters, and chronological perceptions such as viability figure importantly in the legal restriction of pregnancy termination (Erdman 29). Yet time is a comparatively under-hypothesized measurement of pregnancy termination and rights of women. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) direction on safe pregnancy termination proceduresdefines gestational restrictions and obligatory wait times as some of the access barriers, and therefore, concerns for women’s rights. International human rights law commonly distinguishes timeliness as an element of access and enforces state requirements to safeguard against needless governmental delays. On the other hand, time in abortion law, nevertheless, is an element of numerous human rights disputes out of access. Amongst the most tenacious is the illegal prosecution of women for pregnancy termination procedure, frequently self-induced, during pregnancy ((Upadhyay et al. 1687). In conclusion, while the massive majority of states limit later-term pregnancy termination procedures, many of these limitations have been struck down. Frequently, the law courts of the United States of America have annulled the limitations due to the fact that they do not cover a health exception; comprise an inadmissibly narrow well-being exception; or do not allow a physician to determine sustainability in each distinct case, nevertheless rather depend on an inflexible construct founded on particular weeks of trimester or gestation.   Works Cited Erdman, Joanna N. "Theorizing Time in Abortion Law and Human Rights." Health and Human Rights 19.1 (2017): 29. Levine, Phillip B., et al. "Roe v Wade and American fertility." American Journal of Public Health 89.2 (1999): 199-203. Upadhyay, Ushma D., et al. "Denial of abortion because of provider gestational age limits in the United States." American Journal of Public Health 104.9 (2014): 1687-1694.
References
External links
- Legal
- Full Text of Roe v. Wade Decision
- Abortion Law at AOL
- Interactive maps comparing U.S. abortion restrictions by state
- State Policies on Later-Term Abortions
