On Wednesday, May 20, the Louisiana state legislature passed a law that if passed, would force three out of the states five abortion clinics to close.
According to Jermey Alford and Erick Eckholm of the New York Times, “The new rules passed by Republican legislatures require that doctors performing abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, a provision likely to shut down many abortion clinics across the region.”
Pro-life advocates argue that the requirement for doctors to have admitting privileges is simply an attempt to protect women’s reproductive health. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates argue that this is just a “ a thinly disguised effort to shut down clinics” (Alford and Eckholm).
Similar rules have already been passed in Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, and continue to be introduced into other states in this region, paving the way for drastically reduced abortion rights for women across sections of the South.
Additionally, the South Carolina Senate is also trying to pass a law that would federally ban abortions after more than twenty weeks of pregnancy. The effort is lead by Republican senator Lindsey Graham, and was introduced in November of 2013. As of May 8th, the bill had no democratic supporters.
Abortion is an issue that often divides party lines. Aside from the moral/social aspects associated with the issue, it’s interesting to look at the legality of the legislation, and how they relate to the landmark Roe v. Wade case.
The New York Times posed a fundamental question that is important to consider,“At what point is access to abortion so limited that it violates the right to the procedure granted by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade?” (Alford and Eckholm).
Sources:
I've read the article, but what does the article mean by admitting privileges? Does this mean that the doctors should be part of the hospital in terms of company or does the clinic have to have enough money in order to provide for hospital treatment?
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how the right to abortion seems to be progressively vanishing. The 1973 Roe v. Wade case introduced the right to abortion, and now clinics for the procedure are being closed down. And not only are clinics closing, but the areas that offer it place limitations and restrictions to the point where the right is almost non- existent. To answer The New York Times's question, the point where all of these limitations are violating the right to the procedure, are the fact that clinics are closing, and that doctors also need admitting privileges from other hospitals.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of reminds me of black rights in the south following the Civil War. Though the 15th amendment in 1870 said that no one could deny blacks the right to vote, poll taxes and literacy tests and absurd voting laws persisted (I think there was one that said if your grandfather couldn't vote then you couldn't vote, or something like that). Anyways, like Nick said, I would agree that abortion rights seem to be moving backwards, particularly in more conservative states.
ReplyDeleteI think that because of the decision in Roe v Wade that said that the decision for abortion is about the right to privacy and is between the doctor and the women, it is not totally legal to limit abortion as much as some states are currently. I think that because this is such a personal decision whose moral philosophy encompasses so many that the belief of whether abortion should be legal or not will be ever changing.
ReplyDeleteThe law about restricting abortions after 20 weeks is disturbing; many young women in poorer communities with minimal healthcare education may not even realize they are pregnant before it's too late to make an informed decision. Another issue surrounding abortion is the question of whether the government can require clinics to force a pregnant woman to have an ultrasound and see the fetus? In 12 states, abortion clinics are mandated to show a pregnant women an ultrasound image of the fetus. In my opinion, this is over stretches the power of government, as the sole purpose of the mandated ultrasound is to emotionally manipulate a women out of an abortion.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the Supreme Court has done its job in making abortion legal, and now it's time for the executive branch of the federal government to enforce the decision. This whole scenario of the Judicial Branch lacking executive powers kind of reminds me of Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears. Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, president Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision. I feel that if the federal government doesn't take a strong stand on this case, other states might also try to circumvent the Roe v. Wade decision and a larger, uncontrollable problem might emerge.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Ashwin. This issue has been so politicized and so decisive across party lines that many politicians are afraid to take a strong stance on it and defend women's rights to abortions, because they don't want to lose more conservative votes. It's issues like these that make me wonder if politicians care about supporting what they actually believe in or if they just do whatever they can to play their cards right. Hopefully this trend of sneaky abortion clinic shut-downs that Sitara wrote about is stopped by some federal politicians finally taking a stand for women's rights. We could use a few more Wendy Davis-esque leaders right now.
ReplyDeleteThis is really disturbing. Personal views aside, there are many apolitical and amoral arguments in favor of pro-choice laws concerning abortion. In the novel "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt, crime data from 1950 to 2000 was analyzed, and it was found that crime was at a steady rate from 1950 to 1970, and then it dropped sharply after. This trend once confounded many social theorists. Levitt, in the novel, claims that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the crime drop. With relaxed abortion laws, women who simply do not have the means to raise a child can get an abortion, ebbing the contribution of underserved and underprivileged youth to the vast bank of criminals in the US. So, even if you disagree with abortion from a moral or religious standpoint, there's no doubt that allowing women to have a choice over having children or not is a good thing. If only Southern legislatures could look beyond the politics of the issue and see the reality of it.
ReplyDeleteOnly recently, some of the Southern states passed a law saying that abortion is illegal for any physicians to perform, one of the many reasons being that there are many sects of Christianity in the South pertaining to pro-life organizations. In the federal government, there are still debates on whether a fetus is a life or not at varying time of conception.
ReplyDelete