Roe+v.+Wade

Peter D. Mondi ** Roe v. Wade ** **Background** Roe v. Wade, a landmark 1973 Supreme Court case, determined the legality of the pressing abortion issue in the United States. Abortion generally has been defined as the termination of a pregnancy through expulsion of a fetus. The case initially gained attention when “Norma McCorvey […] wanted to have an abortion, but the existing state law prevented her from doing so. She filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of herself and all other pregnant women. The suit sought to have the Texas abortion law declared unconstitutional as an invasion of her right to privacy as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments” (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005). The case determined that a state could no longer restrict a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This would lead to great controversy amongst political and religious activist groups throughout the United States.



**Controversies** Women’s rights, pro-choice, pro-life, and various religious groups continue to protest to this day over the famous Roe v. Wade decision. Pro-choice groups argue that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body and often either stand by Roe v. Wade or fight to have less restrictions over when a woman can choose to have her abortion (after the first-trimester). Pro-life groups have taken the view that abortion should be viewed as the murder of a child, regardless of how far along the child has developed. More often than not, religious groups (often Christian-based) tend to take the side of pro-life activists. These groups want to see Roe v. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court and often want the act of abortion banned entirely. Currently, there’s a debate over whether insurance companies should provide coverage for individuals who choose to get an abortion. Many insurance companies in the U.S. will provide assistance in voluntary cases for women. According to John Lammers (2011), professor of Organizational Health Communication, many individuals remain upset with their respective insurance company when it provides assistance for individuals who choose to have procedures that they don’t view as moral. Insurance provides assistance to individuals from a pool of purchasers, so those against abortion indirectly pay for the procedure to be performed. However, most of these individuals receive coverage from their employer and choose to stay with their current plan due to the expensive nature of paying for an outside insurance plan. Government provided health insurance or assistance, such as Medicaid, provides health care coverage for abortions in limited cases and even then, clinicians are often reluctant to sign off on the procedure. According to Kacanek et al. (2010), “to file a Medicaid claim for a patient’s abortion, most respondents reported they are required to fill out forms certifying that the woman is seeking an abortion because of rape, incest or life endangerment.” This also creates controversy because pro-life tax payers don’t feel they should have to pay for individuals to have abortions. Pro-choice individuals fight for the government to provide even more assistance in obtaining an abortion and don’t feel that the government should place so many restrictions on obtaining assistance. Health care reform related to abortion remains a prevalent topic as new laws pass and become enforced. Controversy still exists about the stipulations of the ruling and for the most part the law has been relatively untouched by most states. A recent study demonstrating feelings about abortion over time posed the following question, “Should a woman be allowed an abortion in ‘all circumstances’? Twenty-four percent said yes, according to Harris; 20 percent replied no. In 1985, it was 26 percent for, 20 percent against. […] How about abortion under ‘some circumstances’? Fifty three percent, yes, according to the 2006 poll—the same level of support as in 1985” (Murchison, 2006). This study shows that while Roe v. Wade grants the right to an abortion, Americans still believe that there needs to be restrictions when obtaining one. Feelings have not changed significantly since the 1980’s, which explains why controversy continues to exist over the subject. According to Brant et al. (2006), “though a narrow majority of Americans say they are pro-choice, recent polls show that roughly two out of three favor some restrictions on abortion. The anecdotal evidence is growing that women have moral qualms about any abortion, even if they feel compelled to have one.” American’s believe that moral issues exist about abortion even if they are unwilling to identify themselves as pro-life. Women face a difficult decision when choosing to have an abortion and personal morals often come into play. Controversy will always continue to exist over this subject because the pro-life and pro-choice groups have such strong opposing views that finding a middle ground would be nearly impossible to reach.

**Avoiding Unwanted Pregnancy** While abortions do occur because of unavoidable circumstances such as rape, many of them arose from avoidable situations. There are steps individuals can take to avoid unwanted pregnancy though. Use of contraception such as condoms and birth control has been proven to be highly effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence also remains a viable option for individuals who don’t want to become pregnant. An interesting study regarding mate choice revealed that “Abusive men are more likely than their nonabusive peers to report being involved in pregnancies ending in abortion” (Silverman, et al., 2010). Rape victims and those involved in violent relationships often find themselves having abortions as a result of unwanted sex. Choosing a non-violent mate will help prevent pregnancy. Proper sexual education can also play a role in whether individuals become pregnant or not. States have set different stands for sexual education throughout the country and some individuals will never properly learn about sex. Scholars suggest that “sexuality educators must recognize that an open discussion of unsafe sex is an important part of the prevention process rather than a model which dichotomizes behaviors as either safe or unsafe” (Naisteter & Sitron, 2010). A holistic view of sexual education that looks at the act of sex as having both benefits and risks would help properly educate people, allowing let them make informed decisions about their sexual practices, which could lead to fewer abortions.

**References** Brant, M., Thomas, E., & Taylor Jr., S. (2006). Reality Check for 'Roe'. Newsweek, 44-45.

Kacanek, D., Dennis, A., Miller, K., & Blanchard, K. (2010). Medicaid Funding for Abortion: Providers’ Experiences with Cases Involving Rape, Incest and Life. Endangerment. //Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health//, 79-86.

Lammers, John. (2011). Communication 463: Organizational Health Communication. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Murchison, W. (2006). Too Late For Debate? The Human Life Review, 9.

Naisteter, M. A., & Sitron, J. A. (2010). Minimizing Harm and Maximizing Pleasure: Considering the Harm Reduction Paradigm for Sexuality Education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 110.

New York Times. (1973). //On This Day...// Image Retrieved April 10, 2011, from New York Times Learning Network: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0122.html

Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Gupta, J., Miller, E., Raj, A., et al. (2010). Male Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence and Involvement in Abortions and Abortion-Related Conflict. American Journal of Public Health, 1416.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. (2005). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Roe_v_Wade.aspx