Should the Supreme Court Strike Down Laws Increasing Restrictions on Abortions?

The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is still one of the most hotly discussed rulings in the history of the high court. Despite great efforts by anti-abortion supporters, the core tenets of that decision have remained in place for nearly 50 years now. However, these tenets are once again being challenged, as the Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning a Mississippi law that would outlaw abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Those who support the Supreme Court striking down laws that increase restrictions on abortions argue that such laws are a violation of a woman’s right to privacy and the ability to make decisions about her body. This side may argue that an unborn fetus has not adequately developed yet to have rights and that therefore the focus should be on the woman’s right to choose what she wants done.

Those who support the Supreme Court striking down laws that increase restrictions on abortions argue that such laws protect the unborn’s right to life. They contend that the fundamental job of government is to protect the life of all, and an abortion is equivalent to killing a fetus. Therefore, they argue, the Court must not strike down laws that would increase abortion restrictions.

So, what do you think? Should the Supreme Court Strike Down Laws Increasing Restrictions on Abortions? Students can answer Yes, they should; No, they should not; or a nuanced answer in between!

Note: Ideal Think the Vote responses include the following:

-Address the question asked in a thoughtful and meaningful manner

-Use cited facts and constitutional arguments when appropriate to support their answers

-Are expressed in cohesive sentences and are free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors

-They address counter-arguments and opposing concerns in a respectful manner

-They organize their answer in a manner that flows logically and reads clearly

Current Standings:
Yes: 37%
No: 62%
  • Audie from Virginia

    I believe that the right to an abortion should remain between a woman and a doctor. I do not believe that the government should enforce any medical infringement upon the people of the United States. There was a law recently passed in texas that put a heavy restriction on a woman’s right to get an abortion. It made it so women were not allowed to get an abortion after six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. This to me, is frankly ridiculous that a woman would have to keep a baby which she had without consent. She would be forced to go through the trials and tribulations of a nine month pregnancy for a child she may not be able to support and take care of. As a result of this, the child may have to go through the horrors of the foster care system, or potentially be born with an increased chance of a dangerous condition.

    [read less]

    I believe that the right to an abortion should remain between a woman and a doctor. I do not believe that the government should enforce any medical in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Stephanie from Illinois

    In the United States, it has been made very clear on multiple occasions, that we are a free country under any circumstances. The abortion restrictions go completely against that statement. I strongly believe that the Supreme Court should take down the laws increasing these restrictions because a woman’s body should not be dictated by the government, or anyone else besides herself. What happens to a woman’s body should only be caused by her own choices. A woman should have her own rights to her own body not only because it is right, but because it is logical. With an abortion, it is her choice to not carry a baby for nine months and then deliver that baby, which is a very painful process, which should completely be up to her to decide for herself. In a lot of cases, the child was either not planned for, there are money complications, or it is simply just the choice of the mother. All of these justifications are valid to decide to get an abortion because they would all be decisions made by the mother, whose body it would be happening to. If in any of these cases, the mother decides to not get an abortion but wishes she would have, the baby will grow up being unwanted, or in a corrupt foster care system. Both of these scenarios can end very badly by either the child having severe mental problems, or worse. These problems would be able to be prevented if there were no restrictions on abortions. When aborting a child, it is not an easy thing to do, but in a lot of cases, it is either the life of the mother, or the baby. If there are any type of medical implications that suggest that the mother is at risk, why would you leave your child without a mother? Overall, women should have the right over their own bodies and their own choices, having someone else decide your entire future is wrong and unjust.

    [read less]

    In the United States, it has been made very clear on multiple occasions, that we are a free country under any circumstances. The abortion restrictions…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rukaya from Arkansas

    Across the globe, the United States of America is known for being the land of the free and giving its inhabitants something that they might not have elsewhere, a choice. Why now, when a woman’s life is at risk, do we say that she can’t get a choice about whether to keep her baby or not? I believe that the Supreme Court should strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortions because a woman’s body is her own, and therefore she should have the freedom to choose what happens to it. She is the one who will have to go through the difficult nine months of pregnancy before going through the painful and sometimes deadly process of giving birth. In many cases, the baby wasn’t planned for, and this could lead the parents to not want their child. The child would grow up with the feeling that they aren’t wanted, possibly leading to depression and suicide. This death could’ve been prevented if the parents, knowing that they wouldn’t be able to give the time, effort, and love needed to raise a child, had the option to abort the baby. Contrary to popular belief, choosing to abort a child isn’t an easy decision, and in most cases, the mother feels guilty for a long time afterwards. For example, a close relative of mine had a spinal fracture, and she got pregnant. The doctor told her that her life and well-being would be at risk if she kept the baby, leaving her other children behind without a mother. The mother doesn’t feel guily because she feels regretful about her decision, but rather because of society’s negative opinion on abortions, even she felt she had no choice. Many people might say that the mother could put the child up for adoption, but again, that lets the child grow up feeling that their birth parents didn’t want them and ultimately to depression. Others might say that the baby has a right to live, but by giving the baby a “right to live,” we are risking both the mother and baby’s lives. No one should have the right to control someone else’s body in the way we would be doing by restricting abortion access and forcing the mother to keep her baby. Another issue with this is that by restricting safe abortion access, we are limiting people to more dangerous and illegal abortions. This is because if someone needs an abortion, then they will get it even if it puts them at risk. Why force people to go the illegal route when we could provide them with a safe option? Another example of the hypocrisy of society is that the majority of those same people who are wanting to restrict abortion access, are the same people who want the right to protect themselves by any means necessary if threatened. They want the right to bear arms as self defense, even if this means risking the life of another. A woman wants control over her body, which is something she shouldn’t have to fight for. Still, people are telling her no while advocating for the right to bear arms when threatened. A more modern example of this hypocrisy is mask wearing with Covid-19. Many people are and were saying we shouldn’t force them to wear masks, and yet, the majority of them are advocating for less access to abortion. They try to force mothers to keep their child, but won’t wear a mask when it will protect others. In conclusion, the United States should never take away what makes our country so great, and that is the human right to make our own choices.

    [read less]

    Across the globe, the United States of America is known for being the land of the free and giving its inhabitants something that they might not have e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ira from Tennessee

    Every term used to refer to abortion and its details is politicized- from the self-proclaimed “pro-life” movement, you’ll hear “abortionist” hurled like an insult at healthcare professionals. The “pro-choice” movement may refer to conception as the fertilization of an egg, while others claim conception is the creation of life itself. No matter which terminology you use to justify your opinions, there are a few facts and constitutional rights pertaining to abortion that cannot be denied by either side. First and foremost, we must establish that the constitution is not a document in which every citizen’s rights are laid out plain and clear. The document was written with the intention of evolution and interpretation throughout the ages: take the 9th amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” With this amendment, we can confirm that while the right to an abortion is not laid out in the Consitution, it is also not ruled out. At the time of this amendment’s ratification, slavery was still legal, women and people of color could not vote, and equal protection under the law was not real. This amendment allowed the law to stretch and change based on any time period’s perceptions of right and wrong. Soon after the 9th amendment was ratified, the 10th amendment was, which stated: Each state retains its sovereignty, liberty, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” These 2 amendments lay out a general argument: citizens have rights not included in the constitution, and each state has the right to regulate these rights, due to their sovereign status. The overarching regulation, however, is that states can not infringe on constitutional rights or rulings of the Supreme Court with their own laws. Under Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court clearly laid out Constitutional arguments to preserve abortion: the 14th amendment, which states that each individual has an ultimate right to privacy over their lives and decisions. The 14th amendment had been used prior in cases relating to oral contraception, another controversial topic. But ultimately, the court used clearly constitutional logic to show that a woman’s privacy to control her own pregnancy is protected under the 14th amendment, and regardless of the state’s rights to regulate themselves, they could not infringe on this right. With a newly majority conservative court, many believe the court will strike down its earlier rulings and allow states like Missippi and Texas to issue the most restrictive abortion laws in American history. However, it is my firm belief that these laws cannot remain, as they do not pass the tests of constitutional rigor, and they limit our country from progressing forward. The most common argument heard against abortion is that abortion is terminating life; however, during Roe v. Wade, it was clear to see why this simply isn’t true. The court defined unborn fetuses not as people, but as parts of the human beings they were inside. Scientifically, it is brazen to say that a pregnancy is truly a life of its own, considering that it cannot sustain itself, or live outside the womb. While many point to a heartbeat as proof of life, we must ask the question: is life defined purely by the act of respiration and bodily functions, or by something else? From the standpoint of the law, humans that are in a vegetative state or in a coma sustained by a machine can be taken off that machine, and their life ended by family members who consent. But, it is not the family members killing their relative: that human being’s life ended when they went into a coma, and the only semblance of life in them was their breathing. In this way, a fetus also cannot be defined as truly being alive. However, the more important reason to maintain abortion is to maintain the rights of women. It took the US 133 years to recognize the right of women to vote, but we are still arguing about their most basic rights over their own bodies. We will never be able to reach true gender equality until women have an absolute and total right over the state of their own womb. For generations, men made decisions on behalf of women, for everything ranging from their daily activities to the most intimate of decisions regarding health and children. With Roe v. Wade, Americans recognized this reality and sought to rectify it. Regardless of religious Americans’ concerns with abortion, the opinion of a few cannot oppress a majority. 1 in 4 American women will receive an abortion sometime in their life- we must aim to maintain this procedure’s legality, so as to help preserve the rights and health of women. If Roe v. Wade is struck down, and restrictive laws passed, abortion would not end. Instead, we’d see an epidemic of women dying from unsafe abortions done at home or in unsafe environments, and more lives would be taken than ever before. Given these 2 main reasons: Constitutional and moral, it is essential Roe v. Wade stay in place, and women maintain their right over themselves.

    [read less]

    Every term used to refer to abortion and its details is politicized- from the self-proclaimed “pro-life” movement, you’ll hear “abortionist”…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brandon from Illinois

    To me, I believe that the Supreme Court should strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortions. I strongly believe that it should be the woman’s choice of what to do with her own body. Having a baby can change your life for good, and women should have the choice to do what they are ready for.
    With many states beginning to try and make abortion nearly illegal, I think it is important to have the supreme court step in and take away some of those restrictions. For example, In Texas, they have made it illegal to have an abortion after six weeks. In my opinion, that is terrible. In six weeks and sometimes earlier, a woman is supposed to make such a petrifying decision. How are you supposed to even make a choice by that time? It is basically impossible. Texas pretty much-banned abortion. With that said, this is why I think the Supreme Court should strike down laws increasing regulations on abortion. If they do not, then many more states will take advantage of that and put even more restricting laws in place. It should be the womans choice with her body. Sure you can have a limit on how long after you realize you are pregnant to abort the baby, but it needs to be reasonable.
    In addition, if the Supreme Court does not step in, then although there might be more restrictions, women will still find a way to have abortions and it will be even more dangerous. By having more restrictions, if a woman knows they want to abort their baby, and they live in a state with these restrictions, then they will just go to another state in order to do so. The problem with this is that some people might have to resort to illegal abortions which can end in very bad ways. With these restrictions, nothing will happen besides just making the process more dangerous for the mother.
    To sum everything up, I heavily believe that the Supreme Court needs to strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortion because it should be the woman’s choice to do what she wants with her own body, and making more restrictions will just make the situation more dangerous. To be fair, if you are pro-life, wouldn’t you want the mother’s life to be safe as well. You wouldn’t want the mother to die while just trying to avoid regulations put in place by the state.

    [read less]

    To me, I believe that the Supreme Court should strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortions. I strongly believe that it should be the woman…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bella from Illinois

    The Supreme Court should increase restrictions on abortions to uphold the promise of the most simple right to life. Abortions are immoral and by no means a “woman’s right”, they are murder. At the moment of fertilization, a zygote is created. The zygote has DNA provided by both parents and, therefore, all of the genetic information to develop into more mature stages. No pro-choice advocate can define a day or week when life is formed, because they strive to deny a life existing when abortions take place. But the scientific criteria for the existence of life is as follows, “ if something has the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce. A zygote possesses all of these qualities and therefore is alive, from a basic moral standpoint to kill this being is murder. However, the argument extends beyond this for pro-choice advocates, but can easily be defeated. It is commonly stated that if a family is not financially stable or the child will be raised in a bad environment, they should be aborted. Quality of life has no impact on the value of a life, when somebody is struggling financially or a victim of domestic abuse we do not kill them to get them out of that situation. The most innocent form of life that has done no wrong to the world should not be punished for the immoral behavior of the people around them or the unfortunate circumstances they are raised in. There is also a word commonly used, “viable”, meaning “able to live after birth”. This word is often used incorrectly, unless the child is a stillborn or a miscarriage this is non-applicable. Following birth, if the baby is ill then the necessary actions should be taken to maintain that life, but I believe this word is often misused. Many people use this word to define a being able to live on its own, independent from the mother. However, any child following birth is infinitely dependent on a caregiver for a very long period of time. If a woman is able to carry a pregnancy full term without life-altering complications, abortion is nothing more than a murderous action which should certainly be restricted by the Supreme Court.

    [read less]

    The Supreme Court should increase restrictions on abortions to uphold the promise of the most simple right to life. Abortions are immoral and by no me…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kiawna from Montana

    Men shouldn’t decide what is best for women’s bodies. Its the women’s body and she should have the choice of abortion if she is not ready or cant afford to take care of a child.

    0
  • Maria from Kentucky

    No, the Supreme Court should not strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortions. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Every American citizen is guaranteed the right to life. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or any other founding document does it say we should be able to live exactly how we want.
    Even if we forget about all the moral complications involving abortion, abortion as a whole is unconstitutional. But it the moral complications should be addressed. Now, I recognize there is more to abortion than killing a human life and saving a human life. Many pregnant women seeking abortion are not equipped with the money, supplies, or emotional support needed in raising a child.
    Other pro-abortioners say it is the woman’s choice to decide what she does with her body. I say this is true; if she wants to engage in sexual intercourse, that is her choice. If she decides not to use contraceptives while engaging in sexual intercourse, that is her choice. However, it is no longer the woman’s choice to decide what she does with her body when it involves a human life.
    Now, saying even this, I realize that it is not every woman’s choice. Some women wishing to have an abortion have been raped. These women have all my sympathy; it is disgusting that any man would do this and they should be dealt with accordingly. An alternate choice to having an abortion is giving the baby up for adoption.
    I could go on and on, but needless to say; the Supreme Court should not strike down laws restricting abortion. There are so many alternatives to abortion.

    [read less]

    No, the Supreme Court should not strike down laws increasing restrictions on abortions. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote “We hold…

    [read more]
    0
  • Charlie from Kentucky

    The Supreme Court should not strike down laws that increase abortion restrictions because abortion is an inherently evil act that eradicates the life of a living being. Although people have many differing views on this contentious subject, the main issue at hand that people cannot agree upon is exactly when a human life begins. I believe it is at the moment of conception, but I can understand how someone may disagree with me on that point. With that said, I cannot agree with the notion that is justified for the woman to kill a fetus, whether or not it can feel pain at its point of gestation because it is completely wiping away the chance at life for that unborn child. The lost lives of the unborn is a terrible tragedy that must end because they are totally vulnerable and at the whim of their mother. Furthermore, looking at this issue on a national level shows how far behind we are on this issue. Only 7 nations, including China and North Korea, allow walk-in abortions after 20 weeks, and the U.S. is one of them, according to Newsweek.com. However, it is foolish to leave the discussion at this due to the complexity of this issue. It begs the question of when is abortion ever a just solution. After all, some pregnancies place the lives of the mother and baby at risk. These cases should be treated individually based on the severity of the situation, but for the most part, the mother should do everything in her power to give the child life as long as it doesn’t result in her own death. It’s hard to believe that abortion will ever be completely outlawed in the United States, but each additional restriction will pave the way to a brighter future for the unborn babies of this country. The U.S. The Constitution does not provide much for this issue, but according to the tenth amendment, the rights not clearly listed in the constitution belong to the states, leaving this up to the states to decide on policy. Current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a recent article on Reuters.com, stated that the Constitution is neither pro-life or pro-choice, but instead leave the decision up to the states. All in all, this seems to be an issue that won’t go away anytime soon, if ever, but the unborn need someone to stand up for them because they have no way to protect themselves whatsoever.

    [read less]

    The Supreme Court should not strike down laws that increase abortion restrictions because abortion is an inherently evil act that eradicates the life …

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kentucky

    No, congress should not strike down restrictions. It is the baby’s right to life that is being taken away, and at that point, it isn’t the woman’s body therefore it is not her choice. Some people say that the fetus isn’t alive until he or she is born, but then why are people charged with double manslaughter or double murder when a pregnant woman is killed? Is the baby only a human life when it is wanted? This thought is utterly ridiculous. Scientists would consider bacteria life on mars, yet people argue that a heartbeat isn’t life on earth. Abortion is murder. There is no other way to sugar coat it. It is the baby’s life; therefore the mother should not have the right to choose to kill it. If anything, the court should increase abortion restrictions.

    [read less]

    No, congress should not strike down restrictions. It is the baby’s right to life that is being taken away, and at that point, it isn’t the woman’s bod…

    [read more]
    0
  • George from Kentucky

    The issue of abortion may very well be the most polarizing issue in modern American politics. Rarely will you find someone who is unable to understand the rationale behind the opposing side’s argument. Much of the debate comes as a result of the prevalence of Christianity in the United States, and many discussions about abortion include an appeal to religion. I am personally a Roman Catholic, and while in that sense I disagree with the practice of abortions, this argument holds no grounding with respect to legal matters. Despite the prevalence of Christians in the United States, our nation is, ultimately, a secular entity, and religion should thus hold no binding authority in determining the legality of abortion. Regardless, of religion, however, the Supreme Court should still refrain from increasing restrictions on abortions, as they violate the rights of the unborn to live.
    In 1973, Roe v. Wade established a precedent, later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, which allows women to receive abortions and allows states to creat laws limiting abortion provided that these standards are based on fetal liability– that is, how likely it is for a fetus to survive outside of the womb. The recent Mississippi law disallows abortions after 15 weeks, a far cry from the conventionally accepted 24-week mark. This law violates the precedent of the Supreme Court’s rulings, so the question, ultimately, is whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly on abortion. The majority opinion of the court cited the 14th and ninth amendments in Roe v. Wade, and stated that they established a right to privacy– doing so through the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty and the ninth amendment’s guarantee of rights not specified in the Constitution. This ruling in and of itself is reasonable, and an assertion against a person’s right to privacy could be a dangerous and, perhaps, totalitarian move. The crux of the debate ultimately lies within that word, “person.”
    There is no constitutional definition of personhood. Throughout American history it has been interpreted selectively to infringe upon the rights of others, namely non-whites during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Three-Fifths clause (formerly Article I section II of the Constitution) and Dred Scott v. Sandford are two of the most notorious cases regarding this, as they recognized African-American slaves as three fifths of a person and property respectively, thus denying them their fundamental rights. Fortunately, these travesties have since been overturned by the 14th amendment, the very same one which has been used to justify abortion as it pertains to a woman’s privacy. But what about the fetus’ right to privacy, or its right to life at all? Do the ninth and 14th amendment not also protect a fetus’ fundamental rights as they do all other American citizens? Some argue that fetuses are not people until birth, but what fundamentally changes between gestation and birth? The severing of the umbilical cord? But fetuses can be born early, too, and their life remains the same without those extra few weeks of gestation. So, then, some argue that the point of viability marks the beginning of life. But is there a concrete point of fetal liability? The point of fetal liability is not concrete– in June of 2020, a boy was born at 21 weeks and survived, three weeks before the point of viability. Did his life not count for the next three weeks? There even exists a federal law recognizing fetuses as living people– the Unborn Victims of VIolence Act of 2004 , which stipulates that if a fetus in gestation is harmed during a violent crime, it is considered a legal victim, regardless of age, in all cases outide of abortion. There is no concrete point at which one could argue that human life begins– that is, outside of conception. This should not be a restriction of the rights of women, and it should never be used in any way to infringe upon a woman’s right to bodily autonomy– it’s just that her rights do not extend to the body of her child. Medicaly necessary abortions would also not be infringed upon by this interpretation– just as a woman’s right to bodily autonomy should not supersede a fetus’ right to life, a fetuses right to life should not suprsede its mother’s right to life– and in cases where an abortion should be necessary for the sake of the health of the mother, by all means it should occur. Because, ultimately, one’s most fundamental right, specified in the Constitution or not, is one’s right to live.
    Sources: https://www.newsweek.com/i-authored-mississippis-abortion-bill-heres-why-opinion-1654573
    https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.htm
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
    https://www.wionews.com/world/boy-in-us-state-of-alabama-sets-record-as-most-premature-baby-to-survive-428538

    [read less]

    The issue of abortion may very well be the most polarizing issue in modern American politics. Rarely will you find someone who is unable to understand…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ariana from California

    The Supreme Court should not strike down laws that are increasing restrictions on abortions, because the protection is not clearly stated as a Constitutional right therefore it is the decision for the people and the states decide under the 10th Amendment. In the United States since Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, it has been estimated 61,628,584 abortions have ended life for the unborn. The protection of the unborn and the voice that cannot speak, but needs to be heard is now louder than ever. We can protect the sanctity of life with a constitutional right for the unborn fetus and save our society. A more reasonable approach to abortion is a social adoption plan in our society, with so many families eagerly wanting to adopt. A hasty and poor decision can be filled with a lifetime of pain and regret from a momentary selfish decision to abort.
    A lot has changed over 50 years with advancements in science and medicine. The risk to the mother to carry a child has decreased dramatically and the viability of the newborn has thanks to advancements. “Survival Among Infants Born at 22 or 23 Weeks’ Gestation Following Active Prenatal and Postnatal Care: One in 4 infants born at the border of viability”
    The argument of “control of my body” is a flawed argument as it does not consider the life of the unborn as an equal life and right to survive. A balancing test must be used to determine the least intrusive violation of Constitutional rights: a woman’s right to privacy and the ability to make decisions about her body vs. the life of an unborn and the consequences of caring for a child until birth and giving it up for adoption. Allows allowing for adoption within 48 hours of birth removes the argument of the financial burden of caring for a child for 18 years. With advancements in science, generally, a child will survive outside of a mother after 24 weeks. The question becomes for the court to balance and decide should life be worth a mother to carry a child for 24 weeks? The laws should not favor one person right to life over another, and we must recognize laws to protect the unborn’s right to life. In our society, our laws do not allow for suicide to end your own life or to murder, but it allows you to end the life of an unborn child. A Constitutional right to life should include all life, a clear definition by law when it has determined when life begins. Our courts will have to oversee changes and regulate the laws, but a Constitutional Amendment now would protect the rights of the unborn.
    The unborn should not be voiceless, we must stand together and declare that all life matters and unjustified killing is against all religious beliefs and laws. St. Augustine stated, “An unjust law is no law at all.” The Supreme Court should not legislate from the bench but allow the people to decide through the democratic process what laws to all in their given state. Therefore, the Court must not strike down laws that would increase abortion restrictions.
    F/N – https://www.lifenews.com/2020/01/10/61628584-babies-have-been-killed-in-abortions-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/
    61,628,584 Babies Have Been Killed in Abortions Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 National Steven Ertelt
    Survival Among Infants Born at 22 or 23 Weeks’ Gestation Following Active Prenatal and Postnatal Care, Author: Katrin Mehler, André Oberthuer, Publish Year: 2016, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27214875.
    Lex iniusta non est lex (English: An unjust law is no law at all), is a standard legal maxim. Originating with St. Augustine, the motto was used by St. Thomas Aquinas and quoted by Martin Luther King Jr.
    Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_iniusta_non_est_lex

    [read less]

    The Supreme Court should not strike down laws that are increasing restrictions on abortions, because the protection is not clearly stated as a Constit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Kentucky

    Although the 1973 court case Roe vs. Wade is commonly discussed as the beginning of the abortion debate in America, its history extends to nearly 100 years before the ruling. In the mid-1800s, several states passed anti-abortion laws in response to moral and safety concerns. Furthermore, the American Medical Association sought to end legal abortions by 1860, as America classified abortions as a felony and medically risky. As the feminism movement of the 1960s and 70s surged and gained popularity, these efforts finally began to be challenged in the Supreme Court. With the case of Roe vs. Wade, the decision provided guidelines for abortion availability based upon trimesters and fetal viability, while nullifying existing state laws that banned abortion.

    In modern-day America, however, this precedent is once again being challenged at the state level. Both Mississippi and Texas have passed bills restricting abortion access and limiting the time available for abortion to be legal. Despite the policy of stare decisis and the rare occurrence the Supreme Court overturns a precedent ruling, the discrepancy between the state level and the federal courts is a huge reason why the Supreme Court should re-evaluate the decision of Roe vs. Wade. In order to resolve the conflict between state and federal governments, the Supreme Court should consider the statistics of modern abortions and note the arguments of restrictions against abortion to implement devolution by giving states the right to decide.

    Many believe anti-abortion laws to be a violation of privacy and man’s control over woman’s body, but anti-abortion laws are in place to protect women from unnecessary and expensive medical procedures. While labor and deliveries are covered under every medical insurance plan due to the Affordable Care Act, abortions vary based on the insurance company and could lead to a steep out-of-pocket price. Besides, no treatment for abortion comes without side effects like cramping or bleeding, and it is simply morally wrong to defeat the purpose of sex, which is to procreate.

    [read less]

    Although the 1973 court case Roe vs. Wade is commonly discussed as the beginning of the abortion debate in America, its history extends to nearly 100 …

    [read more]
    0
  • Peter from Kentucky

    I strongly believe that the Supreme Court should not strike down any state laws placing restrictions on abortions. I have religious beliefs that often influence my thinking on the subject on abortion, and I have also been surrounded by people with very strong opinions on the matter throughout my life, but I will not let those influences get in the way of the most fundamental standpoint on abortion: the logical, scientific view. The issue is so contentious that many discussions about it often devolve into “shouting contests” to assert one’s own opinion and disregard others. However, actual discussions on the issue can take a number of different routes, whether that be determining whether a fetus is human in the womb, or whether a woman’s right to privacy surmounts the rights of what some view as a “clump of cells” and some view as a human, no matter the development. However, I think it is important to acknowledge the intentions of both pro-abortion and anti-abortion people. Regardless of thought on the issue, it is vital to understand that abortion advocates are fighting for what they believe is the right of privacy of a woman, which aims to benefit pregnant women in difficult situations. Likewise, those who are anti-abortion attempt to fight for what they believe is the right of life of a human, in order to save the life of an unborn child. Regardless of the validity of both of these intentions, I believe that abortion itself is immoral and illogical, and that it is the murder of an innocent, defenseless human. Before I discuss the legal aspect of the question at hand, and my specific thoughts regarding constitutionality and restrictions on abortions, I’d like to provide reasoning for my beliefs on the subject as a whole. First, when does a human life begin, exactly? Is it at birth, when a fetus has completely left the womb? This notion would suggest that location is the determining factor of what makes something a living, breathing human, which is clearly wrong. If a fetus does not become a child at birth, when then does it truly become a living human? Suppose someone proposes that life begins at a certain stage of development or functionality, such as beating of the heart or brain function. Well, this would then suggest that someone who has heart failure, or loses brain function, should be thrown away and forgotten like many unborn children are, as they lose their human status of worth through this loss of function. So I believe that stages of development are ruled out. What about time, in general? Many abortion restrictions are dependent on the age of an unborn child in months, but these time intervals largely coincide with stages of development, and are very general. Furthermore, if the start of human life or worth is so contentious among people, why then should there be any answer besides conception as the start of life and worth? If there was sometime later in a pregnancy when the fetus becomes an unborn child, I think that would be relatively, scientifically clear and agreed upon, yet it is not. As the National Center for Biotechnology states in a conclusion regarding the beginnings of personhood with respect to biology, philosophy, and even some religion, “arguments that challenge fertilization as the event at which human personhood begins do not sufficiently compel opinion due to several semantic discrepancies” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/). No matter the size or the human qualities of a fetus, each contains genetic blueprints for an entirely unique being that is granted life by a father and a mother, and these lives should be protected at all costs, not murdered, disregarded, and sometimes even cut up and donated as tissue (https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction).
    There is no respect for these millions of lives that have no voice to speak for themselves, yet are provided the chance to live full lives by a mother and father, only to have it taken away. This leads me into another point: despite the mother carrying out the pregnancy, the father has equal say on the child, as half of the child’s genetic information is from the father. Carrying out a pregnancy is much more difficult and straining than simply waiting for the baby to be born, but fathers are not second-class parents and have every right to determine what is best for their unborn child as the mother. Now, this is made difficult in cases involving rape or single, expecting mothers, as they are put into incredibly difficult situations regarding the resources, responsibilities, and time required to take care of a child for themselves. And especially in cases of rape, the burdens that are a part of pregnancy can be emotionally damaging. However, I believe that the best way to benefit both the mother and the unborn child is to spare the life of the child, yet provide substantial support and aid to a mother in need of help. However, women are often not given the assistance that they need, which can lead to an unhealthy family life or an abortion. Something many single mothers don’t consider is adoption, although it is a difficult process and not exceptionally vital to the topic of abortion. In essence, I believe that human life begins and has worth at conception, and these unborn children should not be harmed in any way, yet pregnant women in difficult situations need better financial resources and support for their challenges.
    This leads me to the Supreme Court. I think that states should absolutely have the right to restrict abortions if it is their will. The ninth amendment seems to suggest that it is an unwritten right of a woman to have privacy and control over her own body. This is absolutely true and should not be infringed upon, but a fetus is NOT a woman’s body, but instead is a body of a child within a woman. A woman cannot naturally have two heads, four legs, four eyes, and twenty fingers. Yet implying that a fetus is a woman’s body and is therefore woman’s right on which to decide would suggest all of these absurd notions are true, and clearly they are not. So while a woman does have the right to privacy and her own body, a fetus has rights as well, and while they may not be explicitly written in the constitution, the Supreme Court should not deny the states the right to decide these restriction laws. I think that the best outcome of the whole abortion argument would be if abortion were made illegal in all cases besides medical emergencies or matters of life and death of the mother, and if women were somehow given all of the resources they need to either carry out a successful parenthood and raising of a child, or to put a child up for adoption in an organized, beneficial manner. However, because these criteria are all far from being met, the protection of state’s rights to legislate abortion restrictions should at least be upheld because of the lack of explicit law regarding abortion in the constitution.

    [read less]

    I strongly believe that the Supreme Court should not strike down any state laws placing restrictions on abortions. I have religious beliefs that often…

    [read more]
    0