Should the government and a few select interest groups and even doctors have the power (or even the right) to make decisions for women all over the county? Well, yes and no.
On the surface the issue seems just a conflict of interests, but when going deeper than just the surface of the issue, one finds that it is an issue involving basic human rights. Certainly, the “right to life” is a right, but it is where one’s rights start stepping over another’s that this issue starts getting messy. Taking away a woman’s right to choose would be impeding her basic rights and it would essentially be telling her she is not capable of making decisions regarding her own life and body.
Well, whichever side “wins” the issue; the other will be unsatisfied and will continue to demand a change in policies.
It’s impossible to talk about the pro-life/ pro-choice debate without bringing in the politics of it. There are several politicians that believe a right to life is a more important right than the right to choose. Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) believes that the right to life is “the greatest human rights struggle in the world.” He believes that abortion is pretty much child abuse, and that it is the Pro-Choice movement falsely is labeled as a form of “female empowerment”. While there is some validity in the points he makes, for the most part his thinking is rather backwards. If human rights are the issue here, he is putting the unborn fetus over its mother and is therefore embedding on her rights to protect another’s. The issue here is whose rights are more important?
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the Health Care Reform bill is another thing that is getting in the way of a woman’s right to choose. The amendment would prohibit the use of Federal Funds to cover any abortion costs except for in cases of rape, incest, or the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother.
Mark Kirk, a candidate who was supported by NARAL and was considered as moderate and pro-choice before he changed his vote on the amendment. While the other candidate, Bill Brady, who is on is wanting to outright ban abortion. Whoever wins the senate seat could quite possibly be the deciding vote on the Health Care Bill, depending on if candidate Kirk changes his mind again.
Would putting funding towards abortion on the Health Care Bill be so bad? Yes and no.
Pro-lifers think so; while Pro-Choicers believe that by not having the abortion funding clause on the Health Care Bill would send the United States back to the years before Roe V. Wade.
Pro-Lifers are upset with President Obama because he made false promises to them about abortion funding on the proposed Health Care Bill, they are calling the bill “pro-abortion” and are trying to do everything they can to stop it.
It seems that the pro-life side is more radical and less conscious of other’s feelings as they try to win the debate. Case and point: Atlanta’s Controversial Pro-Life Billboard. The billboard boldly declared “Black children are an endangered species.” Not only was the billboard outright outrageous, but it was racist. The Pro-Lifers who created the billboard stated that: “Ninety-four percent of all abortion clinics are located in urban areas,” and 43 percent of all black pregnancies end in abortion.” (Cassy Fiano, Hotair.com) It seems that race is a large factor in the right to an abortion debate.
Another example: In Portland, Oregon a new Planned Parenthood was recently opened on NE Martin Luther Kind Blvd, a predominately African-American and low income area of the city. There were protestors outside the new center on February 14, not only protesting its opening, but claiming that it was unfairly targeting African Americans because of the neighborhood the new PPH was located in.
If you ask just about anyone from NARAL or PPH, they would tell you that the reason the statistics show that minorities or lower income persons are more likely to attempt to access an abortion is because they are not educated in the area of how to have safe sex.* It seems that many of the radical pro-life groups pick and choose the facts that best suit their needs so they look like the good guys.
An example of a less radical pro-life interest group in this debate is the 40 Days for Life Campaign which is headed by Andy Haines and his wife. They travel the country and are attempting to discourage women from getting abortions after experiencing them for themselves. Their mission is to show the country how detrimental abortions are emotionally and not so much how they are morally wrong.
Another good example of a pro-life group using less radical means to convince women that abortion is wrong was the Tebow SuperBowl ad. Before the advertisement aired, there was an uproar on the pro-choice side of the debate, because the pro-choicers believed that an advertisement during the Superbowl was not the best time to push moral values. (I mentioned the pre-airing reaction in a previous blog post.) After the ad aired, the only thing pro-choicers had to complain about was that the ad advocated an “unhealthy” message to women, because Tebow’s mother decided not to get an abortion even though her doctor strongly advised her to because of health reasons.
What this whole pro-life/ pro-choice debate comes down to is morals. Not who is more morally right, it comes down to what the individual believes to be right. Rverybody is different and nobody should be forcing what they believe on others and making them conform to it. The government nor special interest groups should not be given the power (or the right) to make decisions for all women. What there needs to be in the health care bill is a clause, if one wants to have abortion covered on their health care bill; they should be able to obtain one, easily. And if they don’t want abortion on their health insurance coverage, then they don’t have to have it on their plan.
*I actually talked to people from NARAL about this issue. It is also something I discussed with Erin H. PR from the ASUO Women’s Center
Analysis of Sources:
1. Anti-Abortion Doctors Challenge Guidelines By: Claire Trevett, New Zealand Herald (Nzherald.co.nz) [1st Accessed: Feb 21 @ 8:57 pm]
Doctors that are not in favor of abortions have challenged the Medical Council and its guidelines how have they (the doctors) must deal with patients.
This is a journalistic source, it comes from a newspaper from a different country, but it is still quite relevant to my issue. I believe it is a good idea to get different perspectives when writing a paper and looking at sources. The newspaper may only be available in Australia and New Zealand, but they post all their articles online so they are accessible to anyone who wants to look at them. I came across the NZ Herald when I typed “anti-abortion doctors” in Google news.
While it is news from New Zealand, it is only proving that women all over the world face the problem that certain groups are trying to take away their right to choose and decrease accessibility to an abortion.
2. US Congressman Calls Upon UN Delegates to Respect Life By: Samantha Singson, C-FAM [1st Accessed: Feb. 21 @ 7:54 pm]
The fight for life: it’s a human rights issue. Congressman Christopher Smith believes that the fight for the rights of the unborn is “the greatest struggle in the world” and that the right to life needs to be supported by the United Nations.
This source comes from an institutional (non-profit) source; it is from the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute’s (C-FAM) website. It claims to be “a non-partisan, non-profit research institute”. Everybody has access to the article; however, this website is catered toward those of a more conservative persuasion.
This is important to my issue because it shows the other side of the issue and it’s important to have different perspectives when following and blogging about an issue. The article also mentions some of the politicians that are involved with my issue. With a lot of these types of websites that are taking a particular stance in the issue, they are biased in the information they display and they’ll leave information out if it weakens their argument, simply to make their side look like the right side. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing since I got my information from sources on both sides of the issue.
3. Mark Kirk OK Sharing Ticket With Conservative Bill BradyAuthor unknown, The Huffington Post [1st Accessed: Feb. 22 @ 6:14 pm]
Two Republicans running for the Illinois State Senate, Bill Brady, who is on the far right is wanting to outright ban abortion; the other, Mark Kirk who is more moderate is pro-choice and was supported by NARAL before he changed his vote on the Stupak Amendment.
NARAL no longer looks at Mark Kirk as a “moderate Republican” or a “Pro-Choicer” nor do they support him in his campaign for the Illinois Senate seat after he changed his vote on the Stupak Amendment.
The Huffington Post is technically a journalistic source, but since the writers get their information from actual news sources and then re-write them in a “blog-like” format, I would classify this source as a citizen source (since it’s technically a blog). This source is available to all because it is only an online source.
This is important to my issue because it is an article involving politicians and abortion politics. The article is also important to my issue because this election campaign in Illinois is happening at the same time that I am keeping my blog.
4. Center Calls on Congress to Stop Talking “Status Quo” around Public Funding for Abortion and Protect Women’s Health Author unknown, Press release from the Center for Reproductive Rights [1st Accessed: Feb. 18 @12:15 pm]
The Center for Reproductive Rights is urging Pro-choice lawmakers to stand up for women and repeal the federal funding restrictions on abortion; in particular, federal funding for those women who are already on welfare. If the FY11 bill were to pass, it would take America back to what it was like (for a woman) in the days before Roe V. Wade.
This source comes from a press release on the Center for Reproductive Rights website. The CFRR is an institution and I would consider it a “business”.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a similar institution as NARAL because their mission is to protect the reproductive rights of women all over the country and they believe the right to an abortion is a “fundamental human right.”
This is from the Pro-Choice side of the issue. This is important to my issue because the resulting healthcare bill could greatly affect women’s reproductive rights. I’m using a source from the CFRR’s website because they are a national group and they are deeply involved with the fight for women’s reproductive rights.
5. House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics, No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over Author unknown, prochoiceamerica.org [1st Feb. 22 @ 6:34 pm]
The Stupak Amendment is an important aspect to my issue because the amendment prohibits the use of Federal Funds to cover any abortion costs except for in cases of rape, incest, or the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother.
This is a journalistic, academic research, and an institutional source (government). Because NARAL’s website is stocked full of press releases and news articles; at the same time, NARAL is a national group fighting for women’s reproductive rights.
NARAL is in strong opposition to this amendment because it could mean that people who already have health insurance that covers abortions could lose it. Members of NARAL work for electing pro-choice candidates, they organize campaigns and events for the cause, they lobby congress, they do research and analysis about the current standings of bills involving women’s reproductive rights.
I found NARAL a rather useful source when I was doing preliminary research for this paper because they lay out information rather simply and concisely. While I didn’t use this source as a tool to help me analyze my other source specifically, I used it as a base for my overall project.
6. White House May Unveil Pro-Abortion Health Care Proposal Before Summit By: Steven Ertelt, Life.com editor [1st Accessed: Feb. 20 @ 3:15 pm]
The White House health care summit beginning on the 25 of February, will have some sort of “Pro-Abortion” version of the health care bill floating around. Pro-Lifers are also upset at President Obama because he has made false promises to them about having abortion funding on the proposed health care bill.
Prolife.com claims an “independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community”, so a journalistic source. I would argue that it is not a journalistic source just because it is far to biased to be considered one. I came to this conclusion just by looking at the advertisements and other headlines of issues they write about.
This article is important to my issue because it is the Pro-Life side of the issue and I believe that it is rather bias because they call the new health care bill “Pro-Abortion”, and they don’t look at any other aspect of the bill besides the fact that it has some federal funding proposals for abortion. Also there is a sizable banner in the center of the article claiming “Abortion is Not Health Care”.
7. Atlanta’s Pro-Life Billboard Uproar Author unknown, The Week Magazine [1st Accessed: Feb. 22 @ 6 :00 pm]
Pro-Choice groups are in an uproar at some billboards that a Pro-Life group have unveiled in Atlanta. They say the billboards are racist and just plain wrong. The billboards boldly say: “Black children are an endangered species.”
This source is a journalistic one. The Week started in the UK and different editions are now both available in Australia and the US. It claims to “distill” the all aspects of the news (culture, business, sports, etc) in the edition of the country it is in. This is a good source because it is not biased and it shows the views on both sides of the issue and in a neat concise format.
Statistically, black women are three times more likely to have an abortion versus white women and that 94% of abortion clinics are located in urban areas. Statistics aside, these billboards are wrong and are attacking a particular race and not attacking abortion itself. Pro-Life groups are arguing that Pro-Choice groups are racist and are targeting black women (and other minorities) with where their clinics are located. [note #8 and the PPH clinic on MLK st.]
8. New Planned Parenthood opens in Portland By: Steve Beaven, The Oregonian [1st Accessed: Feb. 15 @ 2:05 pm]
The new Planned Parenthood center opened in Northeast Portland as yet another small step in the fight for health care reform.
This article is important to my issue because it one of the battles of those who choose to support women’s reproductive rights must fight and it is on a local scale. The article also brings up the issue of race and abortion.
This comes from a journalistic source. It’s important because it’s an article from the Oregonian, and it’s an issue nationwide and this is just an example on a local scale. Since this article is from the Oregonian (the biggest newspaper in Oregon) it is available for the entire population of the state, but the majority of the readers live in the Portland-Metro area.
This particular article is useful to my argument because it shows how women’s reproductive rights are being given a helping hand with the new Planned Parenthood building and at the same time it shows the negative side (the protestors) and it also brings up the issue of race and abortion; which is often times overlooked.
9. 40 Days For Life event to spread anti-abortion message By: Don Aines, The Herald-Mail [1st Accessed: Feb. 22 @ 5 :42 pm]
Andy Haines spoke at a rally for “40 days for life” and talked about a relationship he had that resulted in an abortion a few years ago. “40 days for life” is an anti-abortion campaign.
This is a journalistic source and the Herald-Mail is a newspaper that is located in Western Maryland and is read in surrounding states. Again, all articles published in the print version are available online for all to read. According to the “about us” section of the webpage, the difference between those who buy the daily print version (~ 75,000) and those who read online (~203,000).
This article is important to my issue because it bring diversity in viewpoints and the “40 days for life” people believe that life begins at conception and discourages abortion in almost all cases. As a matter of fact, this group claims to have convinced over 2,000 women to forgo abortions since 2004. These people aren’t medically trained doctors, and yet they feel they can tell a woman what is best for her and her body. To them, it is about the soul, and physical health is not as important as the soul.
10. Old Guard Feminists Sound Off Over Super Bowl Ad By: Armstrong Williams, Washington Times [1st Accessed: Feb. 8 @ 2:15 pm]
Before the anti-abortion public service announcement aired, many people were outraged that CBS was going to air such an advertisement during the Super Bowl no less. But, as it turned out, the advertisement was mild in its message and it was not in the least bit offensive. Despite that, feminist groups, the National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL Pro-Choice America urged CBS to “abort” the ad because it gave women the wrong message about abortion.
This source comes from a Journalistic source; The Washington Times, a national news source coming out of Washington D.C. The website contains the same articles as the print version and it is available to anyone who wants to read it. Unlike several of my other sources, this article is less of a (biased) opinion and is more of a news report.
The article summarized the controversial Tebow Super Bowl commercial and spoke of the reaction it got; people realized that it wasn’t a strong pro-life propaganda. This is important to my issue because I blogged about this anti- abortion public service announcement a couple of weeks ago and this article talks about the reaction from it.
