Since the US Supreme Court overturned Texas House Bill 2, which restricts abortion procedures, many people have debated whether it was a good decision.
On one side of the argument are those who believe that women should be given their due choice regarding their bodies and what they do with them. On the other side of this argument are those who believe in life from conception and think that abortion is wrong no matter what.
The US Supreme Court has decided to overturn this legislation because it interfered with a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. They argued that by limiting access and preventing women from terminating unwanted pregnancies, this legislation constituted an unconstitutional "undue burden.
The decision of the court was in line with its 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which reaffirmed a woman's right to choose and recognized the state's interest in protecting fetal life after viability but also "in ensuring that women have the opportunity to make decisions [about their pregnancy] in consultation with their doctors."
The first case that brought abortion rights to the forefront in America was "Griswold v. Connecticut," which was decided in 1965 but didn't become significant until 1973. "[E]ach patient [had] a substantial privacy interest in the making of decisions concerning the medical treatment for her condition." In 1971, this ruling established that abortion is "a fundamental right" and protected by Constitutional guarantees of liberty under the 14th Amendment. This still contends with significant legal battles about when a fetus becomes a human being.
The court also stated that the state does have a compelling interest in protecting the health of women undergoing the procedure. The Supreme Court then invalidated the Texas law provision requiring clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards, which are standards for outpatient surgeries.
This ruling was made because it put an undue burden on women seeking abortions by guaranteeing safe access to clinics that would force "thousands more Texas women to travel long distances and cross state lines to obtain abortions in crammed-to-capacity super facilities. And there would be no guarantee that these clinics would offer such women the choice of a safe, medically qualified doctor."
In reaction to the ruling, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered state agencies to evaluate regulations related to abortion facilities. "For now, things can't change much in Texas," Michael Ferrano, a senior policy adviser for the Center for Reproductive Rights, represented some plaintiffs against HB2 in court. "Despite today's disappointing Supreme Court decision, we hope it will eventually make its way back to the more neutral ground" where "the court can decide this critical matter without politics and hindrance. "
In the meantime, other similar cases against Texas are expected to be heard by the court shortly.
The other side of the argument is that "life begins at conception," but it is a complete misconception behind this assumed fact. No matter what this claim is based upon, it still upholds a belief that life is only worth living once an embryo has taken form. Most measures attempted to control a woman's body during and after pregnancy are still considered unconstitutional and should not have any bearing on reproductive freedom. In some instances, even laws against birth control can be argued as unconstitutional. "Nor is there any reason, as the Supreme Court has made clear, why the government cannot take into account where an individual chooses to live in determining the effect on her of the law."
In response to this argument, some people believe that governments should be able to regulate women's bodies and rights. "The "corporate rights" resulting from corporate personhood include but are not limited to freedom from regulation by states and municipalities." These laws also have a distinct effect on men; they are allowed freedoms under these laws
This is why the rulings on HB2 in the US Supreme Court have repeatedly been challenged by Republican-controlled legislatures, as they are concerned that they are infringing on their "rights" as well.
The only way these laws will be overturned is if people make a stand and do not accept right-wing indoctrination into their brainwashing of young people. The idea of freedom only being allowed when it's not inconvenient and that people's rights should not be denied due to them being different from the majority and holding no responsibility for their actions also needs to be changed.
Citation