Abortion rights: history offers a blueprint for how pro-choice campaigners might usefully respond | The BMJ


In October 1971, the New York Times reported a decline in maternal death rate.1 Just 15 months earlier, the state had liberalised its abortion law. David Harris, New York’s deputy commissioner of health, speaking to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, attributed the decline—by more than half—to the replacement of criminal abortions with safe, legal ones. Previously, abortion had been the single leading cause of maternity related deaths, accounting for around a third. A doctor in the audience who said he was from a state “where the abortion law is still archaic,” thanked New York for its “remarkable job” and expressed his gratitude that there was a place he could send his patients and know they would receive “safe, excellent care.” Harris urged other states to follow the example set by New York and liberalise their abortion laws.

Just two years later, in 1973, the US Supreme Court intervened. In the landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, the Court …

============================================

Abortion, an emotive subject whether you agree with abortion or not.

I honestly feel, that if it was males who gave birth, rather than women, then all these anti-abortion actions would be greatly reduced. Males don’t understand or don’t wish to understand the feelings of women and only look at everything from a male perspective. For far too long women have been and in some cultures still are controlled by males, when, really males and females should be equal. While in ma and in many instances this should be so, but as history shows many areas where women have gained more independence and control of their lives. However, hard fought for rights are always there to be taken away, as is seen in America by the overflow of Roe v Wade.

The American Constitution is held in high esteem in America and so it should, but it was written in 1787 and in force by 1789, but that is many years ago and time has moved on and in some ways so as The Constitution, but not as much as the Bill of Rights 1689, which is a somewhat equivalent in England and was in some way an extension of Magna Carta.

But these were written very many years ago and mainly by middle aged white men, based on hard Christian principles of that time. But, as we know time has moved on and so has the cultures both in racial, disability, gender and many others, including religion.

Women, these days have a much greater degree of input into all areas and rightly so, but in America, women, in some respects are still disregarded and certainly are some persons whose ethnicity is non-white. Unlike in 1789 we are now all equal and the Constitutional Rights should encompass that.

Overthrowing Roe v Wade is a retrograde step and the rights of women have been seriously undermined and not only that, as in the States that have now banned abortions, this is effecting the poor rather than the not so poor. As some of the not so poor could travel to other states who still allow abortions, but the poor can’t afford to do so. But banning abortions will not stop then, but it may reduce then, as the poor will more than likely still wish to have an abortion and will therefore find a ‘back street’ abortion, which is more than likely to mean the women and her to be born baby will be at more serious harm. Yes, the baby will still die, but in circumstances which are far from good and there is a very strong likelihood that the women could receive great serious harm and in some instances death.

The anti-abortionist are now elated that they have gotten their way, but at great cost to women and in doing so have returned women’s rights to medieval times, instead of the 21st century.

In reversing Roe v Wade it is not a great achievement, but forcing all to live their lives by strict, outdated Christian principles, which even in the 1600s were viewed to be extreme, hence the Pilgrim Fathers left England to the Netherlands before embarking on their voyage to the New America. In doing so they also seriously infringed the rights and lives of the Native Americans, who they treated abominably, pushing them off their own lands and killing them when they resisted, is that any different to Russia in Ukraine.

If the Pilgrim Father were doing this today, it could be viewed as a form of terrorism.

 

 

Source: Abortion rights: history offers a blueprint for how pro-choice campaigners might usefully respond | The BMJ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.