Over the past years, most of the state and federal laws have been in support of abortion while considering minor factors. Recently, the court ruling turned down the practice which now hinders pregnant women the ability to terminate their unborn babies. The decision has drawn controversy from various groups of people. Some organizations are backing the move citing the positive impacts that approach will bring to society. However, a number of females have protested against the decision viewing it as a threat to civil rights. The choice to ban abortion will have a severe impact on women and healthcare in the country; doctors must engage judges in case a clinical feticide are necessary, causing a delay that might result in death.
Abortion Ban: Roe vs. Wade
Generally, restricting abortion in the country will lead to negative consequences in healthcare. For instance, pregnant teenagers who are not able and willing to maintain their unborn baby will make disparate attempts to remove the fetus. Such practices might cause the death of the people due to wrong procedures during the process (Bryson et al. 190). Similarly, in cases where the woman’s life is threatened by the existing fetus, the lengthy procedure required to confirm and approve the abortion can be time-consuming, thus resulting in the timely demise of such individuals. In addition, some doctors might be forced to engage in unscrupulous behavior. Assuming a pregnant woman requires immediate abortion to save the life of the mother, the practitioner may choose to charge the victim excessively, knowing the law prohibits the act and the woman cannot take any action against such exploitation. Therefore, banning abortion in the country will potentially cultivate immoral conducts that are against clinical ethics as well as direct danger to the lives of the people already born.
Curtailing the abortion right in the country will enhance the occurrence of preterm birth. Pregnant women having severe health conditions which make them unable to carry the fetus for the required period for delivery may be forced to deliver prematurely. This will increase their health risk and that of the young babies who will be born before reaching the exact time to be delivered (Casas and Chuang 2256). Such babies might have impaired development affecting their well-being and their respective parents. Therefore, culminating the practice of feticide will subject many families to severe and recurring health issues that might affect their overall finances since they will be forced to incur the cost of maintaining such children.
Generally, women must have civil rights; however, the choice to abolish abortion is a direct violation of their freedom. Previously, when pregnant females felt uncomfortable having the baby supposing they were impregnated before reaching the right age, or just did not want the baby, they had the ability to terminate the fetus (Whyte 7). Similarly, those having economic constraints would undergo the procedure to remove the baby. The practice gave women the advantage of deciding and planning for their lives accordingly. But with the curtailing of the practice, women’s right is infringed because they will no longer decide what to do with their own bodies.
The provision of healthcare services should be based on the decisions made within the clinic facilities. However, following the ruling that bans abortion in the country, abortionists are denied the right to make a personal judgment concerning the practice. They are required to obtain approval from the judges in order to proceed with the exercise. This procedure is tiresome, time-consuming, and can highly risk the life of the pregnant woman. For instance, when the fetus has made the mother sick and immediate removal is necessary, waiting for the green light from the court might take long, making the woman succumb due to the condition.
It is a right for pregnant women to access safe and legal medical abortion. Establishing the restriction denies females the liberty of obtaining services from qualified doctors. Abolishing feticide does not mean the practice will stop completely or reduce, but most women will opt for other measures to secure the services. Making the process illegal will make it more deadly and lowers the autonomy of women to decide and receive an effective abortion. Girls and women should have self-independence regarding what happens to their bodies. However, forcing them not to undergo feticide is limiting this right and making them have less control over themselves.
Similarly, the right to choose the number of children a woman can have will be affected. Once females become pregnant, following the restriction, they will not be able to remove the fetus, thus making them have many children, even the ones they did not plan to have. The ruling will leave females vulnerable, especially women from marginalized communities. Therefore, the approach is unfair and affects their right to sire the number of children they can and are willing to have.
Besides the healthcare and women’s rights distortion, banning abortion created massive division in the country. The first dissection due to the abolition is visible in the political arena. The democrats are known to be fully behind abortion rights, and the politicians have been supporting the practice over the decades. Republicans, on the other hand, favor overturning the Roe versus Wade decision. The conflicting opinion will persist, supposing the draft ruling is implemented in the nation.
The citizens are of the country are expressing divided opinions concerning the banning of abortion. Following the issue of feticide, people who do not support the law have conducted demonstrations showing their frustration supposing the ruling overturns the Roe versus Wade decision (Wu and Ida 98). On the other hand, the pro-life individuals are thrilled by the act because they believe the move will save the nation from the overwhelming practice of abortion. The variation in ideology has caused the public to have conflicting point of view across the country.
Moreover, another significant division is among the court judges. During the process of voting to determine the overturning of the Roe versus Wade ruling, some of the judges voted against the move. This indicates that the country’s judicial system has a different perception about banning abortion (Hong 5). Some Justices are conservatives, and they support the option of making feticide illegal in the state. The variation in opinion in the utmost system of the country is impactful to the well-being of the country because some of the judgment requires the common ground to remain effective and operational. Similarly, some states are supporting the abolition while others are completely against the decision.
In summary, the decision to overturn Roe versus Wade ruling will cause significant effects on the country. The need for doctors to obtain approval from judges in case of necessary abortion would probably cause maternal deaths, especially when the pregnant woman is facing a life-threatening condition due to the waiting process. Similarly, females will seek unsafe abortion practices that will risk their well-being. Moreover, the move to curtail the removal of the unborn baby will create massive division in the country. For instance, judges will continue to have divided opinions about the issue, which might affect their viewpoints regarding the situation. The states will have conflicting laws because some favor the decision while others are against it. Such stances are detrimental to the well-being of the people and a country as a whole.
Bryson, Amanda E., et al. “Call to Action: Healthcare Providers Must Speak Up for Adolescent Abortion Access.” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 70, no. 2, 2022, pp. 189-191.
Casas, Rachel S., and Cynthia H. Chuang. “Medication for Abortion and Miscarriage in Primary Care: Important and Possible for General Internists.” Journal of general internal medicine, vol. 35, no. 8, 2020, pp. 2256-2257.
Hong, Kari. “The Supreme Court’s Draft Abortion Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade: How Originalism’s Rejection of Family Formation Rights Undermines the Court’s Legitimacy and Destabilizes a Functioning Federal Government.” Montana Law Review Online, vol. 83, no. 1, 2022, pp. 5.
Whyte, Chelsea. “Roe v Wade is Overturned,” vol. 255, no. 3393, 2022, pp. 7.
Wu, Bohsiu, and Aya Kimura Ida. “Ethnic Diversity, Religion, and Opinions toward Legalizing Abortion: The Case of Asian Americans.” Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018, pp. 94-110.