The total number of reported abortions decreased 24% from 842,855 in 2006 to 638,169 in 2015, the lowest number of abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States. The most recent CDC numbers available, from...
Pop-upView Separately

The total number of reported abortions decreased 24% from 842,855 in 2006 to 638,169 in 2015, the lowest number of abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States. The most recent CDC numbers available, from 2015, continue a downward trend since a peak in 1980. 

The falling number of abortions follows a drop in the number of unintended pregnancies and a drop in teen pregnancies, which some attribute to wider access to and use of contraceptives. Rachel K. Jones, PhD, Principal Research Scientist for the Guttmacher Institute, stated, “Analyses have suggested that improved contraceptive use played a role in the long-term declines. In some states, decreased access to abortion services contributed, as well.” The Economist noted that between 2010 and 2016 states enacted 338 restrictions on access to abortion.

 (via US Abortions at Lowest Level since 1973 Roe v. Wade Decision - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

Abortion Debate Centers on Undocumented Teen in Texas

On Oct. 25, 2017, after weeks of legal fighting, a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant being held in a Texas detention facility was allowed to undergo the abortion she had requested.

The young woman, ‘Jane Doe’ (JD), was detained in September after traveling from Central America to the United States. When JD learned she was pregnant, she requested to have an abortion and was denied by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the federal government agency in charge of caring for unaccompanied minors who have entered the United States illegally. The refusal to allow JD to receive an abortion was based upon a policy implemented by the new director of the ORR, Scott Lloyd, to not facilitate elective abortions for minors.

Under Texas law, minors are required to have parental consent or permission from a judge in order to have an abortion. When JD first requested her abortion, she received permission from a Texas judge to have the procedure, and was appointed a guardian and an attorney. However, although the guardian and attorney secured funding and offered to transport the young woman to receive the abortion, the federal government refused to release her to have the abortion performed.

JD’s legal guardian and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went to court to challenge the government’s refusal to allow the abortion, and US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered that the government must release the young woman or transport her themselves to receive the abortion. The federal government appealed the decision to the DC Circuit Court. After two hearings, the DC Circuit Court sided with the ACLU and JD. On Wednesday Oct. 25, Jane Doe was released from detention to undergo the abortion.

According to a statement released Oct. 25 by the ACLU, “Unaccompanied immigrant youth from Central America frequently face unthinkable hardships before coming into the care of ORR, making prompt medical attention necessary… In fact, human rights advocates estimate that the rate of women and girls raped on their journey to the United States is between 60 percent and 80 percent… By blocking Jane and others from accessing abortion care, ORR has openly disregarded its legal duty to provide prompt access to safe medical care to those within its charge.”

However, according to Melanie Israel, a Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation, “The Trump administration has rightly attempted to 'protect the well-being of [J.D.] and all children and babies in our facilities, and we will defend human dignity for all in our care.’… Wednesday’s news is heartbreaking, but it can strengthen the resolve of pro-life Americans to continue striving for the day when every human being, born and unborn, is protected in law and welcomed in life.”

Source: procon.org

On June 27, 2016, the US Supreme Court struck down a 2013 Texas law that added new restrictions to the state’s abortion regulations such as requiring doctors to have admitting privileges in local hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to have the...
View Separately

On June 27, 2016, the US Supreme Court struck down a 2013 Texas law that added new restrictions to the state’s abortion regulations such as requiring doctors to have admitting privileges in local hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to have the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. The US Supreme Court found, in a 5-3 decision, that the Texas law violated the constitution by placing unjustified burdens on women’s access to abortion.

US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion that neither of the provisions of the Texas law “confers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access… and each violates the Federal Constitution.” In a concurring opinion, US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that “it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 [the Texas law] could genuinely protect the health of women… When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners… at great risk to their health and safety.”

According to Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas case “has essentially relegated women to second-class citizens when it comes to abortion by allowing abortionists to evade meeting basic safety standards that are proven to save lives… We must remember why these safety rules were enacted. When abortion facilities are exempt from meeting safety standards, conditions and practices deteriorate and women are placed in jeopardy.”

After the Supreme Court published its decision in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, President Obama released a statement praising the decision, writing that he was “pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women’s rights and health today… We remain strongly committed to the protection of women’s health, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future.”

Of the 2016 presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein, all believe that abortion should remain legal. Donald Trump believes that abortion should no longer be a legal option in the United States.

(via Texas Abortion Law Ruled Unconstitutional by US Supreme Court)

Source: procon.org

Abortion Controversy Erupts Around Planned Parenthood and the Fetal Tissue Trade

Reenergizing the debate surrounding abortion, on July 14, 2015, an activist group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released the first in a series of undercover video recordings that it says shows Planned Parenthood doctors illegally selling tissue specimens from aborted fetuses for profit. Since the release of the first video, the CMP has released three additional undercover videos.

On July 28, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a restraining order preventing the CMP from releasing any new undercover video containing officials from StemExpress, a company that obtains fetal tissue specimens from Planned Parenthood and then provides those specimens to researchers. The order remains in effect until an Aug. 19 court hearing.

In the complaint filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, StemExpress accused CMP of purposely editing the first two videos it released “in a way to paint the [Planned Parenthood] doctors in a negative and factually-misleading light,” and said that CMP was planning on releasing more “false and misleadingly-edited video designed to further harm StemExpress’s business and subject StemExpress’s employees to additional harassment.” The complaint also accused the CMP of invasion of privacy, receipt of stolen property, and a number of other illegal actions.

According to Troy Newman, a board member of CMP and the President of the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue, the videos show that Planned Parenthood “is selling aborted baby body parts for fees that exceed their actual costs and is modifying abortion procedures in order to produce organs that can be sold all in clear violation of State and Federal laws.”

Under federal law it is illegal for companies to profit from the sale of fetal tissue samples, however, companies are allowed to charge for costs incurred such as processing and shipping.

In response to the accusations, Planned Parenthood spokesman Eric Ferrero stated that “at several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards… there is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”

The controversy over the videos has rekindled public debate surrounding abortion and the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Source: procon.org

Satanic Temple Files Federal Lawsuit over Missouri's Abortion Restrictions

imageThe Satanic Temple filed a federal lawsuit on June 23, 2015 to protest Missouri’s abortion restrictions, specifically the informed consent booklet and the 72-hour waiting period before the procedure is performed.

In May 2015, “Mary Doe,” a member of the Satanic Temple, filed a lawsuit against the Governor and Attorney General of Missouri after attempting to forgo the informed consent and waiting period requirements at a St. Louis Planned Parenthood. Doe argued that the requirements violated her religious beliefs, stating that “As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple… I, and I alone, decide whether my inviolable body remains pregnant.” Doe and the Temple believe that the abortion restrictions violated the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health research and policy organization, three states (Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah) require 72-hour waiting periods, while 23 other states require waiting periods from 18 to 48 hours. 10 states require that written materials be given to the woman seeking the abortion with five states requiring information stating that personhood begins at conception.

Some religions are opposed to abortion, such as the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which explains on its website: “Our church’s explanation of the Small Catechism puts the matter well when it says, ‘The living but unborn are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Since abortion takes a human life, it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of another human, the mother.’”

An article about the lawsuit in the National Catholic Register argued against Mary Doe’s right to get an abortion: “At the moment of conception, the unborn child has a unique DNA. That’s science. Anything else is just propaganda… It seems to me we all knew which side of the abortion debate Satan was rooting for. I just didn’t think it would take him this long to find a lawyer.”

Source: procon.org

Paraguay Denies Abortion to Pregnant 10-Year-Old Rape Victim

image Paraguayan authorities have refused to allow a 10-year-old girl who was raped and impregnated by her stepfather to have an abortion. In Paraguay, abortion is outlawed in all cases except when the mother’s life is endangered.

The girl, whose name has been withheld, began experiencing stomach pains in April. Her mother feared she may have a tumor and took her to a hospital, where she was examined and revealed to be 21 weeks pregnant. The girl’s mother requested that the child be given an abortion, but the request was denied by Paraguayan health authorities, who have asserted that her life is not being endangered by the pregnancy.

The girl’s mother has now been arrested, with the reason being variously reported as because she failed her responsibilities toward the child by allowing her to be abused, or because she helped the stepfather, who is at large, to escape capture. The mother first reported the abuse to authorities in Jan. 2014, but no action was taken at the time.

Amnesty International has denounced the Paraguayan administration for its decision, and its local office has begun a social media campaign using the hashtag “#NinaEnPeligro” (Girl in Danger) to spread awareness of the issue.

In a statement, Amnesty said “Failure by the Paraguayan authorities to provide a safe abortion to a 10-year-old rape survivor could have devastating consequences on her health and will heap injustice on tragedy.” Guadalupe Marengo, Amnesty’s Americas Deputy Director, added that “the physical and psychological impact of forcing this young girl to continue with an un-wanted pregnancy is tantamount to torture.” The United Nations Committee against Torture has stated that “restrictions on access to abortion and… absolute bans on abortion” violate international prohibitions against torture and ill-treatment.

Source: procon.org

Pros and Cons of Abortion, Obesity as a Disease, and Prescription Drug Ads Debated at ProCon.org

red apple health
ProCon.org, America’s largest provider of free pro and con research on controversial issues, has updated and expanded its information on the controversial health topics of abortion, obesity, and prescription drug advertising to consumers. 

These three health topics explore the core questions: “Should abortion be legal?,” “Is obesity a disease?,” and “Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?”

Tougher Abortion Laws Passed by 22 States in 2013

imageIn 2013, a year that marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark US Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide, 22 states restricted access to abortionaccording to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive rights think tank.
   
70 state-level abortion restrictions were enacted in 2013, the second highest number ever enacted in a single year. 2011 holds the record, when 92 laws were enacted in 24 states. There were 205 abortion restrictions enacted during the past three years (2011-2013), surpassing the 189 laws enacted over the entire preceding decade (2001-2010).

The majority of the laws (56%) fell into four categories: bans on abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy, laws imposing tougher restrictions on clinics and physicians, limitations on abortion coverage in private insurance plans, and restrictions on the availability of abortion procedures using medication rather than surgery. Other laws included requiring parental involvement in minors’ abortions, limiting public funding of abortion procedures, extending waiting periods, and requiring women to undergo an ultrasound prior to having an abortion, with the option of listening to the fetus’ heartbeat.

The Guttmacher report also noted an increase in states it terms “hostile to abortion rights,” defined as having “at least four types of major abortion restrictions.” 27 states were included in the “hostile” category in 2013, up from 13 in 2000. The proportion of women living in “hostile” states rose from 31% to 51% in the same period.

Source: procon.org

Should Abortion Be Legal?

Should abortion be legal?The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They argue that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, assert that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt. Read more…

Abortion Controversy Remains 40 Years After Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade demonstrationJan. 22, 2013 marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision that deemed abortion legal under the US Constitution. The controversy over the 1973 case remains part of the national debate over abortion today. Proponents contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and opponents assert that abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being because life begins at conception.

Roe v. Wade was filed on behalf of a pregnant single woman who challenged a Texas law that permitted abortion only to save the life of the mother. At the time of the court’s decision, 30 states had laws similar to the Texas law. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a fundamental right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion.

The Supreme Court’s decision also stated that a woman’s right to privacy must be balanced against protecting prenatal life and the health of the mother. The Court held that different levels of state regulation would be legal based on the stage of the pregnancy. According to PBS Frontline, states “could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations ‘that are reasonably related to maternal health’; and in the final trimester, once the fetus is viable beyond the womb, the state could regulate or even prohibit abortion except in cases 'where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’”

Should abortion be legal?

Should abortion be legal?

The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade declared the procedure a “fundamental right” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They argue that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, assert that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt. Read more…