In 1973, in the case of Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that women had a constitutional right to an abortion. This is based on the fact that people have a right to privacy under the 14^th amendment. The problem hasn’t stopped the fight of whether it should be allowed or not. There is a new law that may be put into place in Texas and 4 other states of the south, but the Supreme Court is temporarily stopping it because it may be unconstitutional. If this law is put into place then over half of Texas’ abortion clinics would close and the last abortion clinic in Mississippi would close. There is a great deal of ethics involved when it comes to a topic like this one. Is having an abortion really killing a baby? Is this going against our freedom of religion? Should we follow everything that the Supreme Court states is a right? Many people believe that states should be allowed to make these decisions themselves, but by doing that would it threaten the health, both physical and mental, of mothers in those states. This law should not be put into place because it goes against the constitution and it would threaten the health of millions of women in our country.

Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been many laws put down federally and by the state that have stopped women from getting abortions.  Since 2010 alone, over 280 laws have been put into place restricting abortions (2). Many abortion clinics have had to shut down because of some of these laws. There are unneeded restrictions put down on abortion clinics, like how their hallways have to be at least 8 feet wide. Any clinic that does not meet the standards has to be closed down. There are also regulations on the abortions themselves, like banning women from getting non-surgical abortions, banning private healthcare, and making women have to wait 3 days before they can receive their abortion. This new law would force abortions to be provided by board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists, which seems good. It looks like one would want to have a trained and certified person giving an abortion, but this is not always the case. Many abortions are non-surgical and many only require one to take pills. These kinds of abortions don’t need to be handled by board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists, but if your abortion clinic doesn’t have one of these board-certified personnel you either have close up shop or admit their patients to a local hospital. Many of these hospitals in the south refuse saying that these procedures are not necessary. All of these laws are restricting women from getting abortions, which is going against the constitution, the Supreme Court, and federal law.

All these laws being put into place are to stop abortions from happening. By banning private health care, one would have to pay out of pocket for abortions, which many people can’t afford. By banning non-surgical abortions, like pills, one makes it so people are more reluctant to get an abortion because they don’t want to get surgery. By making people wait three days, it makes it annoying and sometimes impossible for people to get abortions. People sometimes live hundreds of miles away from an abortion clinic because they’re so little of them in the south. This is because there are so many laws put in place that are closing them down. For many people having to wait three days means that you have to drive a very long way, going to the abortion clinic, waiting three days, and then getting the abortion. A lot of the time people can’t afford to get a hotel for three days and a lot of the time people can’t take three days off of work. Just the fact that there are so little abortion clinics left stops people form getting them. These laws are specifically directed at stopping people from getting abortions.

Many people agree that abortions should be accessible. Molly Stedman, a proud supporter of abortion rights and a student at Ipswich High School, said in an interview that the only criterion for women to get an abortion is, “when she doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore.” She also believes that states should uphold what the Supreme Court deems constitutional. Another interviewee by the name of Sabina Fouser, who is a politics major at Ithaca University, stated that states should not always uphold what the Supreme Court says, but that abortions should be allowed and accessible. “[A woman getting an abortion] can make those decisions herself and whatever is best for herself and her family and her body and the life of whatever cells are inside her,” said Sabina. “It depends on what she believes and what she wants to do,” she continued. Both interviewees also believed that beings do not have constitutional rights at conception. “All of my cells have a right. My dead skin cells have rights,” Molly sarcastically stated, “But on a serious note, no [beings do not have constitutional rights at conception.]”

There are some people who believe that abortions are not as important and shouldn’t be too accessible. One student at Ipswich High School, who wished to remain anonymous, has a somewhat different opinion on the subject.  He believes that states should uphold what the Supreme Court says, but they should also have their own personal rights. It’s very “murky waters” for him. He says, “As long as they’re not completely destroying people’s personal freedoms and choices, I feel like the states should uphold what the court says, but within certain limitations.” He does believe that women should have a right to an abortion, but again it’s murky water. “My religion isn’t really for that,” He said, “I really want to hold to my religion, but it’s hard for me to.” Even though he thinks that an abortion is a right, he doesn’t believe women should have abortions just because they don’t want to be a mother. He believes that only in “unthinkable cases” should one get an abortion. “[The situations in which it is appropriate for a woman to get an abortion is] when her life is at risk, in cases of rape and incest, and if the baby unfortunately dies,” he said. Even thought he doesn’t think that abortions should be as accessible by everyone, he still thinks there are cases where an abortion is necessary. These necessary abortions of rape and incest would not even be able to be carried out because so many abortion clinics are being closed down and because of all the restrictions on abortions.

People have a constitutional right to abortions. This means that there should not be laws put into place that make abortions impossible. So far 3 of the supreme court judges have states that these laws are unconstitutional, all of them women, and 3 judges have stated that they are constitutional. It is all up to the one last judge. If he sides with the women then the laws are not put into place, but if he sides with the men then it is a tie, which means there is a very confusing road ahead of us on how we’re going to figure this all out. Nevertheless, our states need to uphold what the Supreme Court says. The director of the U.S. legal program for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Bebe Anderson, said, “Constitutional rights in this country do not depend on your zip code and where you live” (4). People everywhere deserve to get what is considered to be a right under the constitution, even if you don’t necessarily agree with it.

Sources

1. https://www.lilithfund.org/new-laws/
2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/07/abortion-texas-supreme-court-editorials-debates/71415468/

3. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

4. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/abortion-access-the-south-mississippi-law

5. http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/federal-and-state-bans-and-restrictions-abortion/

6. http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/state-attacks/types-attacks/?&_ga=1.106101440.279781489.1457534482