Discrimination Anyone?

Since the advent of Roe vs. Wade in 973, there has been an ongoing debate on health care coverage for women wishing to receive an abortion. In 1976, congress quickly stepped in through the passage of the Hyde Amendment, named after House Representative Henry Hyde. Per the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid refuses to cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman’s life as a result of her pregnancy. Because 12% of all low-income US women are on Medicaid, they must find other ways to fund their abortion, usually resulting in a sacrifice of basic necessities such as food, clothing, mortgage, or rent payments.

In response, North Carolina developed a state abortion fund in 1978 to help cover abortion costs for low-income women. Between the years that the North Carolina abortion fund covered abortion for low-income women (1978-1995), the state funs were completely depleted a total of five times. During these years, 37% of all low-income women who would have received an abortion carried their pregnancy to term. Since 1995, North Carolina has limited its funding to women who are victims of rape, incest, or suffer from life-threatening health risks.

On average 20% of low-income North Carolina women who would have received an abortion, instead carried their pregnancy to full term. Not to mention that of those 20%, though they may not be plagued by a life-threatening disease, these women may suffer from a different form of illness, as one site put it “cancer, diabetes, or heart illness...” Though I do realize that I have been writing this blog with a pro-life stance (to the last comment, I was not assuming that all students were pro-life, the hyperlink describes one specific instance), I am beginning to see a flaw in our current system. If North Carolinians on a whole, and the state officials they elect, wish to support abortion on the grounds that it is a “woman’s choice,” then how can we support a funding process that is so blatantly discriminatory towards low-income women? Yes, in North Carolina we support a woman’s choice, because she has rights. We, the people of North Carolina support the rich-woman’s choice.

Blog Makeover

Throughout the discourse of this blog I have realized that simply arguing for (primarily) against abortion has become too broad of a topic in comparison to the issues that I would really like to focus my attention on. Therefore, in the continuation of this blog I will focus on state laws pertaining to abortion particularly in North Carolina. Specifically, I will focus on topics of parental and spousal consent, licensed physician requirements, post-viability abortion bans, public funding for abortions, and other issues that have been clearly defined by North Carolina state laws.

Arguments for the change, or support of current North Carolina state laws typically arise out of the two schools of thought for abortion on a whole. The first school of thought is typically referred to as the “pro-choice” thought, where people believe that a woman should have the ultimate choice of what occurs to her body. The second school of thought arises from those who define themselves as “pro-life ,” and support the child’s right to life despite what the mother may want for her body.

In North Carolina, despite our “bible-belt” stereotype, there are laws that support both sides to the abortion argument. For example, typically, the democratic party typically allies itself with the pro-choice platform, while, on the other hand, the republican party typically claims a pro-life platform.

Though historically North Carolina has voted republican in most presidential elections, and state champagnes, North Carolina was one of the first states to legislate the legality of abortion. Also, North Carolina has laws preventing the harassment or blockade of abortion clinics, provides state funds for abortions in certain cases, and upholds a standard for abortion clinics to provide a safe environment for abortions. Currently, the North Carolina legislature is trying to pass a bill that will provide equal medical insurance coverage for contraception, and despite the recent supreme court ruling on partial-births, is unlikely to adopt tougher laws on abortion.

But, despite North Carolina’s seemingly pro-choice laws, North Carolina also reflects its conservative stereotype through certain laws. For example, before Roe vs. Wade, North Carolina did have restrictions on abortions, despite the legality of abortions. Also, for a girl under the age of 18, parental consent, is required in order to obtain an abortion, with the exceptions including a counseling waiver, judicial bypass, or medical emergency. Not surprisingly, of the 100 counties in North Carolina, only 22 have abortion clinics, and of those no clinic will perform an abortion after the 20^th week of pregnancy per state law. Despite these laws, I was surprised to find an overall balance between both pro-choice and pro-life oriented laws in a state where students promote pro-life views in schools, and banks openly promote the nationwide, pro-life, Life Chain.

Thank you to all of those who commented on my last blog, and for the record, no, I do not support partial-births, or their practice, but I do want to be fair to the pro-choicers. I would like to state that I'm sure many of those who are pro-choice do not support of the partial birth practice. I do want to be careful not to generalize their beliefs, but at the same time, I wanted to clarify that point in case any of you were influenced in your current position on abortion by the last blog. If you would like any additional information on partial births, you can visit this site, but please beware that this site is very graphic in describing and diagramming the partial birth process.

Partial Births

In 2007 the supreme court passed the Partial Birth Abortion ban, putting an end to all “partial births” in the United States. Essentially, a partial birth is defined as either inducing labor or carrying through the process of labor until the fetus head or part of the child is exposed. After which, the spinal chord is then cut and the birth process is continued until the fetus is fully birthed already deceased. Until this year, many people were shocked to find that this process was actually used in the United States despite the common belief that abortions weren’t performed in the last term of pregnancy. In researching I was surprised to find people on both sides of the abortion argument were opposed to partial births. Does that mean that the woman’s right to choose does end at a certain point? What is that point, and what is the difference between a partial birth and an abortion performed in the first trimester?

Lack of Logic Fallacy

I admit, I was going to focus my post today on the argument of whether a fetus should be defined as a human being or not. But, while researching this topic I came across a great statement on a pro-choice site promoting abortion rights, and so decided to save it for another day. This site reads, “Anti-choicers insist that the key question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a person or not…That is not the key question at all, of course - anti-choicers are committing the "fetus focus fallacy." Therefore, in order to avoid bombarding the world with my “fetus focus fallacy,” I will turn my attention to the next argument that this site poses, where it states “Which reveals a more pertinent question: Do we provide women with safe legal abortions, or do we let them suffer and die from dangerous illegal abortions?”. I have decided that if the pro-choices want to attack my “fetus focus fallacy,” then I shall henceforth deem this argument the “lack of logic fallacy.” Not only does this argument assume that almost all women would continue to engage in abortion, but it insists that we continue abortion for those people who would ignore new laws. I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten, do we support rape because it will happen anyway? Or de we support criminals, because they could be shot on their job otherwise? I am in no way comparing women who receive abortions to criminals or rapists, that would just be illogical, rather, I am trying to point out the lack of logic put into this common pro-choice argument.

Thank you to comment posted on my last blog. To answer your question about the ethics of abortions performed on those with mental handicaps, I do not think that abortions should be used as a way to avoid taking care of a child with a mental handicap. While I do realize that raising children with handicaps is an economically huge undertaking, I feel that the mental state of the child should never be the deciding factor. What do you guys think?

UPDATE: Here is an interesting forum that I recently found on the internet pertaining to the topic of abortion in cases of mental handicaps: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/aad1c.asp.

Rape, Incest, and Health Risks

In an online debate, Peter Thurley questions a new South Dakota law pertaining to the issue of rape or incest in connection with abortion. Unfortunately, when many people consider the issue of abortion, the “right to choose” during rape or incest is always proposed. Though I am not condoning the practice of abortion during these cases, only one percent of all abortions on average in America are performed as a result of rape or incest. In 2004 approximately 1,293,000 abortions were performed in the US, with an average of 3,542 a day. Is one percent a reasonable amount to justify this practice? Consider this: on average six percent of all abortions in the US are a result of a potential or present health risk to the mother or child. Though this is certainty not the only argument for pro-choice, should we justify this act through the argument of rape, incest, and health risks? Can we?

Welcome

Hey guys, my name is Kryssi and I am a university student launching this blog as an academic debate on a current public issue. Though many people may be tired of the same old abortion and death penalty debate, I feel that this issue is important to our society and should not be ignored. Throughout the discourse of this blog I will try to offer facts supporting both pro-life and pro-choice arguments as I discover my own political views. But, I should warn you that through research in preparation for this blog, I am beginning to lean towards the pro-life argument of abortion. Never the less, I strongly encourage anyone to offer their opinion through reply posts on this site. I can't wait to get this debate started.
~Kryssi.