This is the final essay that I wrote in my LA101H class. It is a persuasive essay on a policy of my choice, why and how I think the policy should be put into effect and how it will be beneficial. I have chosen to showcase this essay because it is my final piece of work reflecting my growth in writing and communication since taking LA101H. I have found that since taking the class I have taken advantage of my rhetorical skills and been aware of how I use them to attract my reader or listener.
Making Abortion Easier
Before the 1970’s the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy was against the law. A momentous decision was made in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court based on the subject of abortion. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade ruled that the privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment gives women the right to have an abortion (U.S. History). Many positive results were expected to come from this decision that allowed women to feel as if they had an opinion and could make their own choices. This verdict not only gave women a sense of dominance but it also discriminate against certain types of women, in this ruling all women were equal. Unfortunately, this sense of supremacy did not last too long before alternative methods where created to censure abortion. Restrictions like the Hyde Amendment where put on abortion to control their funding, and make abortions and as difficult of a process as possible. Anti-choice state and federal politician go through remarkable measures to limit the and eliminate the act of abortion and even the use of contraceptives. The policy I am proposing is to stop the government or medical centers from having any control over women’s choices on their bodies and whether they decide to terminate their pregnancy or not. This also includes any form of persuasion or prohibition of the distribution of government funding for abortions or the distribution of contraceptives.
In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. It ensures that abortion is not covered in the comprehensive health care services provided by the federal government through Medicaid (National Committee for a Human Life Amendment). Women who relied on federal funds through Medicare, Medicaid or who relied on the government for health care where not covered for legal abortions. This unfairly targets low-income women because of there heavy reliability on federal and government funds. Statistics show that unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, and in 2006 the rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women where more than five times the rate among women at the highest income level (Guttmacher). This aids in preventing abortions because the women who can afford abortions are less likely to have unforeseen pregnancies, and those who are more likely are forced to deliver the baby because of their lack of funding. There are also cases where these unforeseen pregnancies are results of rape and incest which is also prominent in low-income Americans. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network found that from 2004 to 2005, 64,080 women were raped, estimating that there were 3.204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period. Originally, the Hyde Amendment did not make any exceptions for pregnant women who where victims of sexual abuse. Since the 70‘s, some states took the initiative to provide public funding for abortion services. Currently seventeen states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions, and out of seventeen states only four of these states provide such funds voluntarily without a court order (Guttmacher) This leaves the low-income women in the other forty-six states with no funding for any abortion services needed.
Another method used to prevent abortion and policy that should be changed was the refusal clauses. Immediately after Roe v. Wade, the refusal clauses where imposed to allow individuals to refuse to provide abortion services based on religious or moral beliefs. In recent years, Congress has passed the Federal Refusal Clause which allows health-care companies to refuse to adhere to federal, local and state laws that have anything to do with providing, counseling or paying for abortion services. These refusal clauses prevented women from not only receiving abortion services but also receiving contraception. If an employer of a company had certain religious beliefs they were allowed to refuse contraceptive converge of someone health plan, pharmacist were allowed to refuse the distribution of birth control pills, and health care professionals could deny patients information on contraceptives or abortion. This also became an issue for low-income Americans because of the difficulties they would have getting any type of family-planning services. This implies that even if low-income women were able to pay for their own abortions without federal or government funding, they still would not be able to receive any services or information due to the refusal clauses. Refusal clauses are also very ethically wrong being that pregnancies can be threatening to a woman’s health. In many cases a pregnancy can also be deadly, and if a patients life is at risk it is ethically wrong not to provide her with alternatives to protect her health. Refusing a women who has been sexually abused with the proper information about abortions is also ethically wrong. There are many Catholic hospitals that will deny treatment to rape victims nor provide them with any type of emergency contraception. Health care companies should not deny the patients for any type of services, contraception or information. The head of the companies beliefs should be kept private and should not interfere with patients attempt to control her pregnancy.
The hospitals who do provide abortion services also have certain regulations to inconvenience their patients. When getting an abortion there are mandatory delay laws that require the patient to wait a specific amount of time before receiving the information needed before the patient can undergo an abortion. Sometimes these laws require women to travel to the hospital multiple times for different information. This would require patients to take off of work, find child care and pay for traveling expenses which would become a large inconvenience. Those obstacles can force the patient to not undergo the abortion due to the inability to make their hospital visits. Abortions also become more dangerous and complicated as gestational age increases, and as the hospital continues to delay the abortion the more they are putting the patient at risk. There are also biased counseling laws that force doctors to speak to their patients and attempt to influence their decision on whether to continue the abortion. The information given is often misleading or based off of inaccurate information. Medical centers should not be able to inconvenience customers in this way or try to persuade their patients not to continue the abortion process. Abortions should be done as efficiently as possible providing the patient with all of the proper information needed. The information given to them should not in any way be biased or intended to change the patients mind.
This problem can easily be solved with a policy that strengthens Roe vs. Wade. This policy would entail the government not only allowing women the right to an abortion under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but to also not interfere with a woman's choice by not allowing her emergency contraception, funding, efficient. service, or the proper information. This policy will be enacted by Congress and will be administered to all states. The policy will go through the branches of the government as any law would. Due to the fact that this problem has caused an ongoing debate for the last forty five years the process of legalizing the policy it may cause disagreements, but with the proper argument it should be apparent that overall the policy will have positive results.
The positive results that will come from legalizing a policy that limits the government and medical centers involvement in women receiving abortions will help give women the freedom and empowerment that they have been fighting for. Women will finally feel like they can make their own personal choices without being coaxed or dissuaded from their choice. This policy will also benefit lower income women who are not provided with funding for abortion and have no other options. A policy like this will result in less children being born in poverty stricken families and ultimately improve the government. The National Center for Children in Poverty estimated that child poverty costs the United States $500 billion a year in lost productivity in the labor force and spending on health care and federal government funding (National Center for Children in Poverty). The high rates of children being born with economic hardships greatly affects our economy. Child poverty reduced productivity and economic output by 1.3 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) a year (National Center for Children in Poverty). A large amount of the governments money is being distributed to supports children born in poverty, that based on the previous statistics are unwanted. The government can support women rights and the improve countries economy by simply reducing other parties influences and control over women’s choices.
Since the abortion law in Roe vs. Wade case was passed, many have assumed that women can easily receive services and contraception if needed. Since 1973 the governments has and continues to propose new laws to prevent abortions or inconvenience women. Although there are people who oppose to abortion and see it as morally wrong, they should not effect a woman's choices and have control over her options. Conclusively, a policy should be put in effect to prevent the government and medical centers from interfering with women receiving contraception and abortion services. The policy will not only benefit women but also low income women and improve our governments economy.
Bibliography
“Facts on Unintended Pregnancy In the United States.” Guttmacher Institute. Jan. 2012. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended- Pregnancy-US.html>
“Hyde Amendment.” National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. 15 April. 2012 <http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=1>
“Roe v. Wade and its Impact.” U.S History. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.ushistory.org/us57d.asp>
“State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid,” Guttmacher Institute. 1 Feb. 2012. 15April. 2012 <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf>
“Ten Important Questions about Child Poverty and Economic Hardship.” National Center for Children in Poverty. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.nccp.org/faq.html>
“Who are the Victims?.” Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. 28 Feb.2012. 15 April.2012 <http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims>
Before the 1970’s the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy was against the law. A momentous decision was made in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court based on the subject of abortion. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade ruled that the privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment gives women the right to have an abortion (U.S. History). Many positive results were expected to come from this decision that allowed women to feel as if they had an opinion and could make their own choices. This verdict not only gave women a sense of dominance but it also discriminate against certain types of women, in this ruling all women were equal. Unfortunately, this sense of supremacy did not last too long before alternative methods where created to censure abortion. Restrictions like the Hyde Amendment where put on abortion to control their funding, and make abortions and as difficult of a process as possible. Anti-choice state and federal politician go through remarkable measures to limit the and eliminate the act of abortion and even the use of contraceptives. The policy I am proposing is to stop the government or medical centers from having any control over women’s choices on their bodies and whether they decide to terminate their pregnancy or not. This also includes any form of persuasion or prohibition of the distribution of government funding for abortions or the distribution of contraceptives.
In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. It ensures that abortion is not covered in the comprehensive health care services provided by the federal government through Medicaid (National Committee for a Human Life Amendment). Women who relied on federal funds through Medicare, Medicaid or who relied on the government for health care where not covered for legal abortions. This unfairly targets low-income women because of there heavy reliability on federal and government funds. Statistics show that unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, and in 2006 the rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women where more than five times the rate among women at the highest income level (Guttmacher). This aids in preventing abortions because the women who can afford abortions are less likely to have unforeseen pregnancies, and those who are more likely are forced to deliver the baby because of their lack of funding. There are also cases where these unforeseen pregnancies are results of rape and incest which is also prominent in low-income Americans. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network found that from 2004 to 2005, 64,080 women were raped, estimating that there were 3.204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period. Originally, the Hyde Amendment did not make any exceptions for pregnant women who where victims of sexual abuse. Since the 70‘s, some states took the initiative to provide public funding for abortion services. Currently seventeen states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions, and out of seventeen states only four of these states provide such funds voluntarily without a court order (Guttmacher) This leaves the low-income women in the other forty-six states with no funding for any abortion services needed.
Another method used to prevent abortion and policy that should be changed was the refusal clauses. Immediately after Roe v. Wade, the refusal clauses where imposed to allow individuals to refuse to provide abortion services based on religious or moral beliefs. In recent years, Congress has passed the Federal Refusal Clause which allows health-care companies to refuse to adhere to federal, local and state laws that have anything to do with providing, counseling or paying for abortion services. These refusal clauses prevented women from not only receiving abortion services but also receiving contraception. If an employer of a company had certain religious beliefs they were allowed to refuse contraceptive converge of someone health plan, pharmacist were allowed to refuse the distribution of birth control pills, and health care professionals could deny patients information on contraceptives or abortion. This also became an issue for low-income Americans because of the difficulties they would have getting any type of family-planning services. This implies that even if low-income women were able to pay for their own abortions without federal or government funding, they still would not be able to receive any services or information due to the refusal clauses. Refusal clauses are also very ethically wrong being that pregnancies can be threatening to a woman’s health. In many cases a pregnancy can also be deadly, and if a patients life is at risk it is ethically wrong not to provide her with alternatives to protect her health. Refusing a women who has been sexually abused with the proper information about abortions is also ethically wrong. There are many Catholic hospitals that will deny treatment to rape victims nor provide them with any type of emergency contraception. Health care companies should not deny the patients for any type of services, contraception or information. The head of the companies beliefs should be kept private and should not interfere with patients attempt to control her pregnancy.
The hospitals who do provide abortion services also have certain regulations to inconvenience their patients. When getting an abortion there are mandatory delay laws that require the patient to wait a specific amount of time before receiving the information needed before the patient can undergo an abortion. Sometimes these laws require women to travel to the hospital multiple times for different information. This would require patients to take off of work, find child care and pay for traveling expenses which would become a large inconvenience. Those obstacles can force the patient to not undergo the abortion due to the inability to make their hospital visits. Abortions also become more dangerous and complicated as gestational age increases, and as the hospital continues to delay the abortion the more they are putting the patient at risk. There are also biased counseling laws that force doctors to speak to their patients and attempt to influence their decision on whether to continue the abortion. The information given is often misleading or based off of inaccurate information. Medical centers should not be able to inconvenience customers in this way or try to persuade their patients not to continue the abortion process. Abortions should be done as efficiently as possible providing the patient with all of the proper information needed. The information given to them should not in any way be biased or intended to change the patients mind.
This problem can easily be solved with a policy that strengthens Roe vs. Wade. This policy would entail the government not only allowing women the right to an abortion under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but to also not interfere with a woman's choice by not allowing her emergency contraception, funding, efficient. service, or the proper information. This policy will be enacted by Congress and will be administered to all states. The policy will go through the branches of the government as any law would. Due to the fact that this problem has caused an ongoing debate for the last forty five years the process of legalizing the policy it may cause disagreements, but with the proper argument it should be apparent that overall the policy will have positive results.
The positive results that will come from legalizing a policy that limits the government and medical centers involvement in women receiving abortions will help give women the freedom and empowerment that they have been fighting for. Women will finally feel like they can make their own personal choices without being coaxed or dissuaded from their choice. This policy will also benefit lower income women who are not provided with funding for abortion and have no other options. A policy like this will result in less children being born in poverty stricken families and ultimately improve the government. The National Center for Children in Poverty estimated that child poverty costs the United States $500 billion a year in lost productivity in the labor force and spending on health care and federal government funding (National Center for Children in Poverty). The high rates of children being born with economic hardships greatly affects our economy. Child poverty reduced productivity and economic output by 1.3 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) a year (National Center for Children in Poverty). A large amount of the governments money is being distributed to supports children born in poverty, that based on the previous statistics are unwanted. The government can support women rights and the improve countries economy by simply reducing other parties influences and control over women’s choices.
Since the abortion law in Roe vs. Wade case was passed, many have assumed that women can easily receive services and contraception if needed. Since 1973 the governments has and continues to propose new laws to prevent abortions or inconvenience women. Although there are people who oppose to abortion and see it as morally wrong, they should not effect a woman's choices and have control over her options. Conclusively, a policy should be put in effect to prevent the government and medical centers from interfering with women receiving contraception and abortion services. The policy will not only benefit women but also low income women and improve our governments economy.
Bibliography
“Facts on Unintended Pregnancy In the United States.” Guttmacher Institute. Jan. 2012. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended- Pregnancy-US.html>
“Hyde Amendment.” National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. 15 April. 2012 <http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=1>
“Roe v. Wade and its Impact.” U.S History. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.ushistory.org/us57d.asp>
“State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid,” Guttmacher Institute. 1 Feb. 2012. 15April. 2012 <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf>
“Ten Important Questions about Child Poverty and Economic Hardship.” National Center for Children in Poverty. 15 April. 2012 <http://www.nccp.org/faq.html>
“Who are the Victims?.” Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. 28 Feb.2012. 15 April.2012 <http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims>