The Controversial Abortion Rights Debate: Balancing Life and Choice

Abstract

Topic: Human Rights Social Problem: Abortion Rights Research Question: Why do states legalize and fund abortion yet life is a fundamental human right? Introduction One can define a social welfare system as a government program that offers assistance to its needy citizens. An excellent social welfare system remains defined by its potential to cater to the well-being of all humans without any discrimination. Such programs cater for various human needs like health care, food, shelter, unemployment, among other human rights that define the well-being of its most deserving citizens. When one talks of human rights, it is imperative to note that any aspect of life that brings satisfaction and happiness to human life may be part of this broad term. For this reason, abortion right serves as one of the human rights that, though defining happiness and satisfaction on one party causes an irreversible injustice to a life that cannot fight for its right to remain protected. Why and how then do states though entitled to embrace social welfare systems that advocate for the well-being of all, legalize and fund abortion. Yet, life is a fundamental human right for all without any discrimination. Abortion right proves a potential social welfare problem that one should argue from both the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives to understand why and why not such a right should be supported. History of the social problem Abortion right is one of the human rights entitled to all women within some states. The legality of abortion remains coined around the pro-choice and pro-life aspects of the social welfare systems employed in different American states (Well, 2021). Arguing from a pro-choice point of view, it is evident that every person has the fundamental right to decide when and whether to have children. For this reason, abortion remains a potential option for unplanned pregnancy, which some states support. Contrary to such a belief, the pro-life approach argues that life is fundamental thus should not be terminated. Such welfare systems fight for the right to life for the unborn child with little concern about the satisfaction of the pregnant woman as life proves more critical. Arguing abortion right from such perspectives, it becomes clear that controversies surround this social problem whose history runs way back from time immemorial. In America, abortion became defined as a booming business in the mid 19th century. During this era, many married, white, and middle-class women ended their pregnancies through abortion. Drugs to induce abortion proved a booming business as advertised in the newspaper and were available from pharmacists, physicians, or mail. Women would freely visit practitioners if such drugs did not work for instrumental procedures. Such freedoms proved a potential cause of increased abortion cases amongst American women. Thousands of lives were lost each day, with women enjoying the liberty of pro-choice. The rising number of deaths for the aborted children who had no potential to fight for their right to live and women upon complications during abortion served as the significant consequence of abortion rights. To this effect, by 1857, the American Medical Association (AMA), in response to the rising number of abortion cases, began an ultimately successful campaign to criminalize abortion. AMA aimed to change the abortion laws and replace them with pro-life approaches that restricted abortion except when a woman’s life was at risk (Tanne, 2019). By 1880, the AMA campaign expressed its success as every state in America had introduced criminal abortion laws with exemptions when a woman's life was at risk. Unfortunately, though illegal, some doctors still performed abortions, and prosecutors enforced the law unevenly and unpredictably. Such loopholes led to a new phase of abortion rights by the mid-1960s. The American Law Institute (ALI) released proposals that defined the legality of abortion and received support from some states. Catholic Church served as a potential opponent of abortion rights, defending the right to life as stipulated in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. At the same time, pro-choice argued that the US Constitution protected the right to choose abortion. The success of pro-choice became defined on the Roe V Wade judgment in 1973, which confirmed that access to safe and legal abortion was a constitutional right. Roe V Wade case serves as a landmark case that enhanced abortion legalization across the United States (Farrell, 2019). Both married and single women became great beneficiaries of the abortion social problems to this effect. In states where abortion is legal, women take advantage of the abortion freedom right and enjoy funding from the government healthcare policies (Medicaid funding) to cater to their abortion needs. Unfortunately, due to such freedoms, the innocent child inside the woman’s womb suffers miserably as they lose life with no law to protect their right to life. Pregnant women also suffer as some lose life in the process of aborting their unborn kids, whether legally or illegally. Poor women and women of color suffer disproportionally as they cannot afford to keep up with the demand of the abortion costs from other states if they live in states that do not legalize abortion. The nation might also suffer in the long run for lack of potential and productive young generation after the aborting women become aged. Intervention Various abortion restriction laws have been made ever since the Supreme Court decision on the Roe V Wade case, which allowed the legalization of abortion across America. However, the Hyde Amendment of 1976 proves the most impactful on the abortion rights problem. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976. It is an Amendment that banned federal funding for abortion care except in limited cases (Gerais, 2017). Such a ban aimed at limiting abortion cases which Congress attributed to the social welfare system (Medicaid funding for abortion), which proved a fundamental healthcare right entitled to all women. Congress understood that most women depended on Medicaid for their healthcare; abortion was their priority. For this reason, Hyde Amendment effectively made it challenging for women to enjoy abortion at the expense of a welfare system with the low-income, poor women and women of color suffering a severe blow (Gerais, 2017). Another potential intervention to the abortion rights problem came into effect in 2003. The pro-choice activists tirelessly continued challenging the pro-life aspect that the American government took in response to an abortion rights issue. To this effect, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act nearly identical law to Hyde Amendment in 2003 (Ajaelu, 2018). PBA also aimed at making the abortion exercise more challenging for its victims. The law restricted women from taking away innocent lives at the government's expense or even through their financial means. It is among the abortion ban Acts that ensured women of all odds have no access to legal abortion to strengthen the pro-life approach of reasoning pregnancies. One can argue that both the Hyde Amendment and Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act of 2003 was successful though not fully as people freely/legally abort in some American States. Both interventions came in response to the noted misuse of welfare systems that the American government designed to cater to the welfare of its most deserving citizens. For instance, Medicaid is a program funded jointly by the federal government and individual states, provides comprehensive healthcare cover for low-income citizens. Proper healthcare is a human right to all Americans without discrimination defines abortion care coverage as part of the comprehensive healthcare services provided to low-income women under Medicaid social welfare. For this reason, coming up with laws that limit access to such healthcare privileges limits chances of engaging in abortion practices, especially when one cannot afford to pay for it. To this effect, the Hyde Amendment and Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act of 2003 prove successful as they limited chances of unnecessary abortion amongst Americans. Most states instituted bans on their state Medicaid program, making abortion quite a challenge for many women (Ajaelu, 2018). Though Obama Era came with reforms that enhanced access to abortion as advocated for Medicaid funding for abortion cases, Trump overturned most of Obama’s abortion funding laws which helped a lot in illegalizing abortion in many American states. The two interventions to abortion rights were relevant to the American government as they helped direct social welfare funds to areas that most deserved its attention. Ever since the passing of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, Congress was able to withdraw all abortion care funds and direct them to other healthcare services of relevance to its needy citizens (Gerais, 2017). Such an approach helps define the ability of a social welfare system to ensure the well-being of its citizens without any discrimination. The interventions also helped save lives as most women feared getting unwanted pregnancies as no law would support catering for their healthcare needs. Withdrawing abortion care from the Medicaid program made many women responsible for their pregnancies, improving their urge to give birth. That is the only way they would benefit from Medicaid healthcare covers. Such an approach helps a lot in bringing forth new lives, which can benefit the future of the American economy. One can argue that the interventions failed many women as much as they favored secure lives of unborn children. Women experienced limitations to Medicaid healthcare covers which was a fundamental right to them. To this effect, many ended up trying cheaper and convenient ways of aborting their unwanted pregnancies,...