The Right to Life vs. Abortion Rights: Exploring the Contentious Issue in Texas

Abstract

Abortion in Texas Introduction Abortion is a very divisive and controversial issue in American society, politics, and culture. However, abortion is legal throughout the United States and its territories regardless of the protections that this nation's Constitution offers Humans rights like life. Killing is a crime as every human has a right to life. What is referred to as a human right? These are rights inherent to all humans regardless but not limited to race, color, gender, or nationality. In America, the right to life and liberty are among the significant human rights entitled to all citizens and well protected by the American Constitution. Texas is among the American States that have legalized abortion with limited restrictions and varying accessibility. Why does this great nation support abortion, which defines the death of innocent souls in its simplest form? Analysis of Abortion in Texas will offer insights into the history and legalities of this practice, restrictions, and any other laws. Is it justified to kill a life that cannot defend itself by destroying its growth within a healthy mother's womb in Texas? History The origin of abortion legality remains coined around protecting a mother’s life. However, it is imperative to consider valid grounds that justify a mother’s life being at risk if the womb continues to hold the embryo or the fetus. In the early 19th century, most abortion bans by state legislature aimed at protecting mothers' lives, given the rising cases of their deaths attributed to abortion practice. However, many Americans from the state governments viewed such bans as selfish, claiming that the bans were only considerate to the state's citizens, ignoring the right to life for the innocent babies carried by such moms. To this effect, in 1854, Texas clearly stated its position on the abortion issue by passing an abortion law legalizing abortion only on the grounds that defined the pregnancy as a threat to the mother’s life “Arts 1191-1194 and 1196 of Texas Penal Code” (McKenna, 2022). In this first abortion ban law, the Texas government confirmed any abortion-related procedure as illegal except preserving a mother's life. In the case of bleach, the Texas governance would subject such an offender to two to five years imprisonment. Any assistance throughout the abortion process, whether the provision of medication or any other form of assistance, deemed the assistor an accomplice who would also face punishment. But was this lawfully effective in limiting cases of unjustified and unnecessary abortions amongst Texans? The Roe V Wade case offers clear insights into the controversies surrounding the first Texas criminal abortion statute of 1854. Abortion Cases that Brought Light on Abortion Issue in Texas Some Texans believed in the fairness of the first abortion ban law, while others like Roe believed that this law was unconstitutional and demanded amendments to fit the demands and values of all persons. After almost a decade of applying the ban among Texans, Jane Roe, an unmarried and pregnant woman, came forward and instituted a federal action against the county's District attorney in March 1970 (Cohen, Adashi, and Gostin, 2021). Roe argued for liberty, personal privacy, and freedom right that the abortion law limited many pregnant Texan women. However, the 1854 criminal abortion statute consistently stood its ground as Roe did not express any signs of threat in case of a continued pregnancy. In such a position, one can argue that the criminal abortion ban law advocated for the right to live for the carried child as such human right remains entitled to all regardless of any factor. However, Roe insisted that she had a right to terminate her pregnancy through licensed physicians. The same state government gave the mandate of terminating pregnancies to women whose pregnancies threatened their lives. Roe believed in personal privacy protections provided for by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments arguing that the abortion ban statute was unconstitutional as it ignored such protections entitled to any Texan woman (McKenna, 2022). One can attribute Roe's arguments on the human right to proper medical care regardless of color, religion, gender, etc. However, it is imperative to note that though Roe deserved a right to all protections mentioned above under the American Constitution, she, in a way, ignored the right to life for the child that she desperately wished to terminate the growth. In that case, ethical consideration proved the only remedy to ensure the realization of an ethical decision fit for both parties. Unfortunately, the statute put the licensed physicians in ethical dilemmas as they remained fixed between bleaching the criminal abortion ban law or the privacy of their clients. It is essential to note that patients have a right to personal privacy; thus, such physicians should keep any personal issues that the patients bring forth to them while seeking their services. Roe deserved such privacy, which exposes the physicians to a dilemma as they would become sued for bleaching such a right which proved a substantial ground for bringing in a new phase of abortion laws in Texas. Licensed physicians like James Hubert Hallford argued for a fair abortion law that considers physicians’ medicine practice rights as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments: the same amendments that Roe grounded her arguments upon. Roe’s victory brought in an amended abortion law that legalized abortion within the first trimester as a matter of balancing the woman's right to privacy with the state's interests in regulating pregnancy (Ziegler, 2018). The amendments came as a significant relief for many Texan women suffering in silence for carrying out unwanted pregnancies, especially those attributed to rape. Further amendments have been imposed on the Texas abortion law ever since the Roe Vs. Wade case. For instance, in 1992, "planned parenthood of southeastern Pennsylvania Vs. Casey," the Supreme court confirmed the unconstitutionality of abortion restrictions if they undue burdened the woman seeking abortion services before the fetus is viable (Maltz, 2021). Such establishments aimed at enhancing the accessibility of abortion services to women without much struggle as they deserved a right to their personal privacy and freedom to decide whether or not to continue any pregnancy. Ethically, such an approach proves ill. Many women would get a chance to terminate pregnancies and engage in sexual affairs without any pressure of carrying a pregnancy as the law protects their right to personal decisions. In Gonzales Vs. Carhart (2007), the court further amended the abortion ban law by uplifting the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibited intact dilation and the evacuation abortion procedure. Though the physicians rarely used the uplifted abortion procedure, the court aimed at ensuring that the interested women get the safest abortion procedures from licensed experts to protect their lives as a fundamental right to them, in whole woman health Vs. Hellerstedt 2016, the Supreme Court further struck down two provisions of Texas law ensuring that only licensed practitioners and justified medical facilities perform legalized abortions to enhance women's safety. Through Supreme Court decisions on other abortion-related cases, the Texas government has further enhanced abortion ban law amendments and recommendations to ensure that only justified abortions happen for the unborn and the mother's safety. Currently, Texans are managing their abortion-related termination issues by considering the first six weeks of pregnancy that the current abortion ban law protects. It is such a relief as many women can now have access to abortion permits during the first six weeks of pregnancy and have access to licensed physicians for a safe procedure to enhance the safety of the aborting woman. Effect of Texas Abortion Laws There has been an increasing trend of abortion cases within...