In 1994, the debate about end-of-life care changed drastically in the U.S. when Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act. This bill permits terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request and self-administer lethal doses of medicine. The ruling does not legalize euthanasia on demand. Only the terminally ill are covered. By 2006, 200 people had used this bill to take their own lives. 1.
On March 5th of 2009, the state of Washington will become the second state to enact into law the Death with Dignity Act, called initiative 1-1000. This law, labeled by opponents as the Assisted Suicide bill, was passed by 58% of the voters in Washington.
CONCERN ABOUT ABUSE
The Michigan Law Review analyzed ramifications of Oregon's law. In a legal paper, Dr. Herbert Hendin, psychiatrist and CEO/Medical Director of Suicide Prevention International, and Dr. Kathleen Foley, neurologist and professor at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, "cited specific examples where opinions of patients' long-time attending physicians are ignored and doctors with only a smattering of familiarity with the patient write the prescription for the lethal dose of barbiturates." 3.
Another study by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University showed that one-fourth of the people killed in Oregon by this procedure were depressed but received lethal drugs anyway.
DEPRESSION AND PAIN MANAGEMENT 4.
Respect for the dignity of life requires that we remove the reasons that people want to die.
Depression is a primary factor linked to assisted suicides. Depression is a condition that should be diagnosed and treated before suicide is considered. Many doctors, however, are often unable to diagnose the symptoms.
Patients often seek death as a relief from relentless pain. Yet with good medical care pain is almost always manageable. When pain is relieved, patients almost always regain their will to live.
LESSONS FROM HOLLAND'S MOVE TO EUTHANASIA
Before 1990, euthanasia and assisted suicide, although not officially legal, were well recognized as medical practices in the Netherlands.
A report(by van der Maas et. al) in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that for the years of 1990-1995, Dutch deaths that included medical intervention with the intent to end life involved 76% that did not involve an explicit patient request for death. Data for 1995 reported 13,919 deaths with clear patient request and 42,874 deaths with no clear patient request.
A bill was passed in 1999 to change the Criminal Code in order to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, thus normalizing actions that were already in practice. 5.
In 1994, Herminia Dykxhoorn accompanied her father to Holland to visit his elderly siblings. She noted in surprise that in 30 years, Holland had moved from:
- assisted suicide
- to euthanasia of people who are terminally ill,
- to euthanasia of people chronically ill,
- to euthanasia for mental illness,
- to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering;
and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. 6.
BRINGING EUTHANASIA HOME
After visiting the Netherlands, pathologist, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was inspired to offer assisted suicide in the United States. In 1990, Dr. Kevorkian started his campaign claiming, "It's your life, it's your death; it should be your choice."
Kevorkian participated in at least 130 assisted suicides before being sentenced to a 10-25 year term in prison. Kevorkian left prison after serving eight years, promising not to help anyone commit suicide but also vowing to continue working for legalized assisted suicide. 7.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF ASSISTED DEATH
Assisted suicide and euthanasia involves much more than a sense of compassion and relief from pain. It carries great potential for abuse. Voluntary suicide may insidiously become involuntary suicide.
Relatives may pressure elderly, terminally ill or disabled family members to end their lives if long-term care becomes burdensome. States may decree that life support is optional and health-care providers may cap or refuse benefits.
A chilling reason for choosing euthanasia is that it is cheaper than treatment. Insurance companies may conclude that funding assisted suicide is cheaper than funding a cure or supporting the disabled.
Advances in medical technology raise questions about how far we should go in preserving and protecting life. Emotionally charged debates between supporters of Death with Dignity and the Right to Life continue unabated as technology creates challenges to the meaning of preserving life or allowing, even hastening, death.
ARE THE RECENT ABUSES WITNESSED IN THE NETHERLANDS BEING REPEATED IN THE UNITED STATES?
REFERENCES
1. Veith, Gene Edward. Feb. 2006. "Life-changing decisions." World:26.
2. Ertelt, Steven. Feb.23, 2009.http://www.lifenews.com/bio2762.html.
3. Ertelt, Steven. Nov.5, 2008. http://www.lifenews.com/bio2617.html.
4. Gordon, Carrie. 1997. Prescribing Death. Focus on the Family. Colorado Springs,CO.
5. Imbody, Jonathan. Jan/Feb 2001. "deadly Diagnosis in the Netherlands." Family Voice:6-12.
6. Dykxhoorn, Herminia. 1999. "Euthanasia in the Netherlands." http:www.euthanasia.com/Netherlands.html. 2.4.2009.
7. Msnbc.com news services. June 1, 2007. "Kevorkian released from prison after 8 years." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18974940. 2.4.2009.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Bias and Error in the Costly Death Penalty System
BIAS IN DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING
It is clear that there is much bias in the administration of the death penalty in America.1.
Poor minorities make up a large percentage of the death penalty cases. It is rare that a rich person will be sentenced to death.
Blacks are disproportionately represented on death row. This historical bias was demonstrated in 1965 by Donald Partington, a Virginia lawyer. He documented that between 1908 and 1963 2,798 men had been convicted for rape or attempted rape in Virginia. All of the 54 executed were black. The bias continues into the present.
Gender bias is also evident. Although women commit 11.6% of the murders, only 1.4% of death row inmates are women. This may be related to the severity and circumstances of the crime.
Where a person commits a murder affects their chances of being put to death. Extreme disparity is seen in execution data listed in Statistical Abstracts between 1977 and 2005. During this time period, 871 executions are listed as occuring in the United States. Six states were responsible for executing 72% of the total number. Southern states predominate in death penalty sentencing.
While:
- 23 states carried out no executions, and
- 7 states carried out no more than 1-3 executions,
- Texas carried out 313 executions,
- Virginia carried out 89,
- Oklahoma carried out 69,
- Florida carried out 57,
- Missouri carried out 61,and
- Georgia carried out 34.
ERROR IN DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING
The finality of the death penalty raises concern about errors in sentencing.
This concern became severe following exonerations based on DNA evidence of more than 200 prisoners, including prisoners on death row.
Jurisdictions across the country are enacting policy reforms to protect against wrongful convictions. Inmates in all but eight states are now given access to DNA evidence that may not have been available at the time of trial.
In a 2005 study, Professor Samuel R. Gross found that between 1989 and 2003, 340 prisoners, 95% convicted of murder and rape, had been exonerated. DNA evidence was used to exonerate 144 of these inmates.
False witness identificaton was involved in half of the murder convictions and 88% of the rape convictions.
Peter J. Neufeld, a co-director of the New York City-based Innocence Project said that the legislation resulting from DNA exonerations is "probably the single greatest criminal justice reform in the last 40 years." 2.
Troy Anthony Davis has become synonymous with error in the death penalty system. Davis was sentenced to die in 1991 after being convicted of killing a policeman, despite lack of physical evidence. Since the trial seven of the nine witnesses came forward to say that they were coerced by police into identifying Davis as the gunman.
Amnesty International, death penalty abolition groups and thousands of concerned individuals, including President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, and Bishop Tutu, have challenged the perceived injustice.
Davis was granted a stay on his scheduled execution while the U.S. Supreme Court considered his petition. The court declined to hear the case. Another execution date was set that was stayed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.
Davis continues to wait and still faces execution. 3.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS COSTLY IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE
Concerns about the death penalty go beyond moral and emotional injustices. The death penalty is an expensive cost to the taxpayer compared to a sentence of life without parole.
The Dallas Morning News, in 1992, reported that "a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years." 4.
Other states report similar extreme costs for the death penalty system. In 2007, California reported that it costs an additional $90,000 a year per inmate to confine an inmate on death row as opposed to those sentenced to life without parole. With California's death row population of 670, that accounted for $63.3 million annually. 5.
Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center,testified that death penalty cases require more time to prepare, more pre-trial motions filed, more experts hired, twice as many attorneys for the defense, more quizzing in jury selection, two trials conducted (for guilt and sentencing), and a series of appeals that come after conviction.6.
In 2000, the U.S. prison population reached 2 million prisoners, up from 1 million in 1995. The U.S. Justice Department reported that 461 of every 100,000 Americans were serving a prison sentence of at least one year.
C. M."Marty" Lensign, warden at Louisiana's Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, noted that cost effective alternatives were not sought because the incarceration business had a financial interest in perpetuating itself. He said, "We've used prison beds to stimulate the economy...In other words, it's an industry." 7.
RETHINKING THE DEATH PENALTY
Considering the bias, error and cost involved in administering the death penalty, there are many questions to be pondered.
The death penalty is viewed by some as a deterrent to future crime, but this is not generally supported by data. Conclusions from many studies show that the opposite is true. States that carry out higher numbers of executions actually have higher murder rates.
Supporters argue that "therapeutic vengeance" brings peace of mind and closure to victims or relatives of the crime. Others contend that laws and objectivity, not emotion, should control the process of justice. 8.
Texas is responsible for over 30% of the executions in the U.S.
A former district attorney of Bexar County, Texas, Sam Millsap, recognizes the fallibility of the death penalty system, saying that an honest assessment of the problems is overdue.
Millsap concludes,"When it comes to human life, a system that gets it right most of the time should not exist at all." 9.
REFERENCES:
1. Henslin, James M.2007. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Boston:Allyn and Bacon:175-177.
2. New York Times. October 1, 2007. "DNA exonerations lead to key policy changes throughout the US". DPIC.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-19270-2993.2/11/2009.
3. Lajoie, Ron. Winter, 2007. "Troy Davis' Day in Court". Amnesty International:6.
AIUSA. Winter 2008. "Letter from Death Row." Amnesty International:7.
4. Texas Death Penalty Education and Resource Center. Feb. 13, 2009. "Costs".
http://texasdeathpenalty.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39<em=62.
5. DPIC. February 13,2009. "Financial Facts About the Death Penalty".
http://wwwdeathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty.
6. Ibid.
7. Katz, Jesse. Feb. 19,2000. "U.S. prison population reaches 2 million mark." San Antonio Express News:16A.
8. Parrillo, Vincent N. 1999. Contemporary Social Problems. Boston:Allyn Bacon:133-134.
Sullivan, Thomas J. 2000. Introduction to Social Problems. Boston:Allyn Bacon:324
9. Millsap, Sam. Dec. 13, 2008. "Death penalty system fatally flawed." San Antonio Express News:8B.
It is clear that there is much bias in the administration of the death penalty in America.1.
Poor minorities make up a large percentage of the death penalty cases. It is rare that a rich person will be sentenced to death.
Blacks are disproportionately represented on death row. This historical bias was demonstrated in 1965 by Donald Partington, a Virginia lawyer. He documented that between 1908 and 1963 2,798 men had been convicted for rape or attempted rape in Virginia. All of the 54 executed were black. The bias continues into the present.
Gender bias is also evident. Although women commit 11.6% of the murders, only 1.4% of death row inmates are women. This may be related to the severity and circumstances of the crime.
Where a person commits a murder affects their chances of being put to death. Extreme disparity is seen in execution data listed in Statistical Abstracts between 1977 and 2005. During this time period, 871 executions are listed as occuring in the United States. Six states were responsible for executing 72% of the total number. Southern states predominate in death penalty sentencing.
While:
- 23 states carried out no executions, and
- 7 states carried out no more than 1-3 executions,
- Texas carried out 313 executions,
- Virginia carried out 89,
- Oklahoma carried out 69,
- Florida carried out 57,
- Missouri carried out 61,and
- Georgia carried out 34.
ERROR IN DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING
The finality of the death penalty raises concern about errors in sentencing.
This concern became severe following exonerations based on DNA evidence of more than 200 prisoners, including prisoners on death row.
Jurisdictions across the country are enacting policy reforms to protect against wrongful convictions. Inmates in all but eight states are now given access to DNA evidence that may not have been available at the time of trial.
In a 2005 study, Professor Samuel R. Gross found that between 1989 and 2003, 340 prisoners, 95% convicted of murder and rape, had been exonerated. DNA evidence was used to exonerate 144 of these inmates.
False witness identificaton was involved in half of the murder convictions and 88% of the rape convictions.
Peter J. Neufeld, a co-director of the New York City-based Innocence Project said that the legislation resulting from DNA exonerations is "probably the single greatest criminal justice reform in the last 40 years." 2.
Troy Anthony Davis has become synonymous with error in the death penalty system. Davis was sentenced to die in 1991 after being convicted of killing a policeman, despite lack of physical evidence. Since the trial seven of the nine witnesses came forward to say that they were coerced by police into identifying Davis as the gunman.
Amnesty International, death penalty abolition groups and thousands of concerned individuals, including President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, and Bishop Tutu, have challenged the perceived injustice.
Davis was granted a stay on his scheduled execution while the U.S. Supreme Court considered his petition. The court declined to hear the case. Another execution date was set that was stayed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.
Davis continues to wait and still faces execution. 3.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS COSTLY IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE
Concerns about the death penalty go beyond moral and emotional injustices. The death penalty is an expensive cost to the taxpayer compared to a sentence of life without parole.
The Dallas Morning News, in 1992, reported that "a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years." 4.
Other states report similar extreme costs for the death penalty system. In 2007, California reported that it costs an additional $90,000 a year per inmate to confine an inmate on death row as opposed to those sentenced to life without parole. With California's death row population of 670, that accounted for $63.3 million annually. 5.
Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center,testified that death penalty cases require more time to prepare, more pre-trial motions filed, more experts hired, twice as many attorneys for the defense, more quizzing in jury selection, two trials conducted (for guilt and sentencing), and a series of appeals that come after conviction.6.
In 2000, the U.S. prison population reached 2 million prisoners, up from 1 million in 1995. The U.S. Justice Department reported that 461 of every 100,000 Americans were serving a prison sentence of at least one year.
C. M."Marty" Lensign, warden at Louisiana's Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, noted that cost effective alternatives were not sought because the incarceration business had a financial interest in perpetuating itself. He said, "We've used prison beds to stimulate the economy...In other words, it's an industry." 7.
RETHINKING THE DEATH PENALTY
Considering the bias, error and cost involved in administering the death penalty, there are many questions to be pondered.
The death penalty is viewed by some as a deterrent to future crime, but this is not generally supported by data. Conclusions from many studies show that the opposite is true. States that carry out higher numbers of executions actually have higher murder rates.
Supporters argue that "therapeutic vengeance" brings peace of mind and closure to victims or relatives of the crime. Others contend that laws and objectivity, not emotion, should control the process of justice. 8.
Texas is responsible for over 30% of the executions in the U.S.
A former district attorney of Bexar County, Texas, Sam Millsap, recognizes the fallibility of the death penalty system, saying that an honest assessment of the problems is overdue.
Millsap concludes,"When it comes to human life, a system that gets it right most of the time should not exist at all." 9.
REFERENCES:
1. Henslin, James M.2007. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Boston:Allyn and Bacon:175-177.
2. New York Times. October 1, 2007. "DNA exonerations lead to key policy changes throughout the US". DPIC.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-19270-2993.2/11/2009.
3. Lajoie, Ron. Winter, 2007. "Troy Davis' Day in Court". Amnesty International:6.
AIUSA. Winter 2008. "Letter from Death Row." Amnesty International:7.
4. Texas Death Penalty Education and Resource Center. Feb. 13, 2009. "Costs".
http://texasdeathpenalty.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39<em=62.
5. DPIC. February 13,2009. "Financial Facts About the Death Penalty".
http://wwwdeathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty.
6. Ibid.
7. Katz, Jesse. Feb. 19,2000. "U.S. prison population reaches 2 million mark." San Antonio Express News:16A.
8. Parrillo, Vincent N. 1999. Contemporary Social Problems. Boston:Allyn Bacon:133-134.
Sullivan, Thomas J. 2000. Introduction to Social Problems. Boston:Allyn Bacon:324
9. Millsap, Sam. Dec. 13, 2008. "Death penalty system fatally flawed." San Antonio Express News:8B.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Freedom of Choice Divides the Nation
When Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973 the U.S. engaged in a massive social experiment that the country was not ready for. Abortion became one of the most explosive, bitter and divisive conflicts on the American landscape.
The terminology used to discuss the issue has been crucial. Initially the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion were used by the media to discuss the positions of the opposing sides. However, each side sought to use more positive images to package their viewpoints. Those supporting abortion rights favored the term pro-choice in support of a woman's right to control her body. Those opposed to abortion favored the term pro-life in support of the rights of the unborn child. 1.
The positions are emotional extremes with little room for compromise. The nation became torn and continues to be divided. In a 2003 Gallup survey, 47 percent of adults claimed to be pro-choice, while 46 percent claimed pro-life. 2.
SOCIAL PRESSURES TO ABORT
Since the legalization of abortion in the United States the pressures not to abort have been replaced by a multitude of social pressures encouraging abortion.
Industrialized countries now favor lower fertility. A woman may be discouraged from bearing a child by family or friends. Increasing data document that in many cases the choice to abort was not made by the woman but was forced upon her.
The Elliott Institute catalogs and examines the after effects of abortion, focusing on stress experienced by women. They report, "Pressures to abort can come from husbands, parents, doctors, partners, counselors or close friends and family. They may threaten or blackmail a woman into abortion...Coercion can escalate into violence." 3.
An abortion security guard testified that women "were routinely threatened and abused by the boyfriends or husbands who took them to the clinics to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions. 4.
Research by Rue et. al. studied the relationship between induced aborton and traumatic stress. In a study of 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) they noted that 64% of women who aborted felt pressured by others; 54% were unsure of their decisions; 67% received no counseling beforehand; 87% received inadequate counseling; 79% were not told about alternatives; 31% had health complication afterwards; and 65% of the American woman suffered multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorders with 14% meeting all of the diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder. 5.
THE POLITICAL PROCESS UNFOLDS
Because abortion is intimately related to the value and meaning of human life and family, the disputes became acrimonious. A struggle ensured for political control over circumstances under which an abortion could be obtained. States became active in seeking to manage and control the circumstances surrounding abortion.
States Limit Abortion Practices
In January of 2009, the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute summarized the laws that had been passed by states "limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion". 6.
*38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician.
*36 states prohibit abortion after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability, except to protect a woman's life or health.
* 14 states prohibit 'partial-birth' abortion.
* 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds for abortion.
* 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans.
* 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion.
* 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions.
* 17 states mandate that women be counseled in regard to the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the ability of the fetus to feel pain (8 states), mental health consequences (7 states) or the availability of ultrasound (6 states)
* 24 states require that a woman wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between counseling and procedure.
* 34 states require parental involvement in a minor's decision to abort. 22 states require one or both parents to consent, while 10 require that one or both be notified.
Federal Protection for the Unborn/Born Alive Child
* The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, enacted into law in 2002, states that any baby born alive is legally a person and entitled to medical care. Failure to provide it is a crime.
* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, enacted into law in 2003, prohibits a late-term abortion called partial-birth abortion.
* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act ,enacted into law in 2004, was the first recognition of federal legal rights for an embryo or fetus as a person separate from the woman. This Act made it a separate federal crime to harm a fetus during and assault on the mother.
THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (FOCA)
This Bill was introduced in April of 2007 but failed to be reported to a committee.
The Freedom of Choice Act "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. It prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices..."
The Freedom of Choice Act was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Barbara Boxer and co-sponsored by 19 co-sponsors, including then Senator Barack Obama.
On July 17, 2007, Senator Obama spoke to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He said, "The first thing I'd do as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." 7.
In discussing the Freedom of Choice Act, Brad Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute, said, FOCA "is a dangerous bill that President Barack Obama has promised to sign...FOCA... would kick to the curb every protective law that has been passed by Congress, state legislatures, or local communities." 8.
MORAL AND LEGAL AMBIGUITY
When does life begin and who should decide? Legal and moral ramifications lie at the core of decisions about abortion. Women, especially young women, are left in a state of ambiguous concern as to the value of the life of their developing child.
Although abortion became legal in the United States in 1973, Time magazine reported in January of 2003 that "53% of women between ages of 18 through 39 say they consider abortion an act of murder." Results of a TIME/CNN poll reported that 60% of 1,010 adult Americans agreed that it is "too easy for women today to get an abortion." 9.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research affiliate, reported that since 1973 the total abortions in the U.S.through 2007 exceeded 49 million, 550 thousand.10.
The Freedom of Choice Act would create extreme and divisive moral confusion in our country.
A "NO" vote to FOCA is the wisest choice.
REFERENCES:1.
Craig, Barbara Hinkson and David M. O'Brien. 1993. Abortion and American Politics. Chatham House:Chatham, New Jersey.
2. Pisano, Marina. "Roe v. Wade at 30". San Antonio Express News. Jan. 20, 2003:1A.
3. Elliott Institute. After Abortion.org. Facts Sheets & Healing: The unChoice.com. 2/3/2009.
4. McQuarrie, Brian. "Guard, clinic at odds at abortion hearing." Boston Globe, April16, 1999.
5. Elliott Institute. After Abortion.org. Facts Sheets & Healing:The UnChoice.com.
Rue, V.M., P.K. Coleman, J.J. Rue, and D. C. Reardon. "Induced abortion and traumatic stress: a preliminary comparison of American and Russian Women." Medical Science Monitor. Sept. 23, 2004. Oc:10(10):SR5-16. E-pub.
6. Guttmacher Institute. "State Policies in Brief:An Overview of Abortion Laws".
www.guttmacher.org. January 1, 2009.
7. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jan. 30, 2009. "Freedom of Choice Act."
http://wn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act.
8.Butts, Charlie. Jan. 28, 2009. "The fight against FOCA begins."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id-399060.
9. Tumulty, Karen and Viveca Novak. January 27, 2003. "Under the Radar-Thirty years after Roe v. Wade." Time. Vol. 161. No. 3:38-41.
10. National Right to Life. http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html.
2/2/2009.
The terminology used to discuss the issue has been crucial. Initially the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion were used by the media to discuss the positions of the opposing sides. However, each side sought to use more positive images to package their viewpoints. Those supporting abortion rights favored the term pro-choice in support of a woman's right to control her body. Those opposed to abortion favored the term pro-life in support of the rights of the unborn child. 1.
The positions are emotional extremes with little room for compromise. The nation became torn and continues to be divided. In a 2003 Gallup survey, 47 percent of adults claimed to be pro-choice, while 46 percent claimed pro-life. 2.
SOCIAL PRESSURES TO ABORT
Since the legalization of abortion in the United States the pressures not to abort have been replaced by a multitude of social pressures encouraging abortion.
Industrialized countries now favor lower fertility. A woman may be discouraged from bearing a child by family or friends. Increasing data document that in many cases the choice to abort was not made by the woman but was forced upon her.
The Elliott Institute catalogs and examines the after effects of abortion, focusing on stress experienced by women. They report, "Pressures to abort can come from husbands, parents, doctors, partners, counselors or close friends and family. They may threaten or blackmail a woman into abortion...Coercion can escalate into violence." 3.
An abortion security guard testified that women "were routinely threatened and abused by the boyfriends or husbands who took them to the clinics to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions. 4.
Research by Rue et. al. studied the relationship between induced aborton and traumatic stress. In a study of 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) they noted that 64% of women who aborted felt pressured by others; 54% were unsure of their decisions; 67% received no counseling beforehand; 87% received inadequate counseling; 79% were not told about alternatives; 31% had health complication afterwards; and 65% of the American woman suffered multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorders with 14% meeting all of the diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder. 5.
THE POLITICAL PROCESS UNFOLDS
Because abortion is intimately related to the value and meaning of human life and family, the disputes became acrimonious. A struggle ensured for political control over circumstances under which an abortion could be obtained. States became active in seeking to manage and control the circumstances surrounding abortion.
States Limit Abortion Practices
In January of 2009, the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute summarized the laws that had been passed by states "limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion". 6.
*38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician.
*36 states prohibit abortion after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability, except to protect a woman's life or health.
* 14 states prohibit 'partial-birth' abortion.
* 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds for abortion.
* 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans.
* 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion.
* 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions.
* 17 states mandate that women be counseled in regard to the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the ability of the fetus to feel pain (8 states), mental health consequences (7 states) or the availability of ultrasound (6 states)
* 24 states require that a woman wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between counseling and procedure.
* 34 states require parental involvement in a minor's decision to abort. 22 states require one or both parents to consent, while 10 require that one or both be notified.
Federal Protection for the Unborn/Born Alive Child
* The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, enacted into law in 2002, states that any baby born alive is legally a person and entitled to medical care. Failure to provide it is a crime.
* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, enacted into law in 2003, prohibits a late-term abortion called partial-birth abortion.
* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act ,enacted into law in 2004, was the first recognition of federal legal rights for an embryo or fetus as a person separate from the woman. This Act made it a separate federal crime to harm a fetus during and assault on the mother.
THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (FOCA)
This Bill was introduced in April of 2007 but failed to be reported to a committee.
The Freedom of Choice Act "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. It prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices..."
The Freedom of Choice Act was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Barbara Boxer and co-sponsored by 19 co-sponsors, including then Senator Barack Obama.
On July 17, 2007, Senator Obama spoke to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He said, "The first thing I'd do as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." 7.
In discussing the Freedom of Choice Act, Brad Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute, said, FOCA "is a dangerous bill that President Barack Obama has promised to sign...FOCA... would kick to the curb every protective law that has been passed by Congress, state legislatures, or local communities." 8.
MORAL AND LEGAL AMBIGUITY
When does life begin and who should decide? Legal and moral ramifications lie at the core of decisions about abortion. Women, especially young women, are left in a state of ambiguous concern as to the value of the life of their developing child.
Although abortion became legal in the United States in 1973, Time magazine reported in January of 2003 that "53% of women between ages of 18 through 39 say they consider abortion an act of murder." Results of a TIME/CNN poll reported that 60% of 1,010 adult Americans agreed that it is "too easy for women today to get an abortion." 9.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research affiliate, reported that since 1973 the total abortions in the U.S.through 2007 exceeded 49 million, 550 thousand.10.
The Freedom of Choice Act would create extreme and divisive moral confusion in our country.
A "NO" vote to FOCA is the wisest choice.
REFERENCES:1.
Craig, Barbara Hinkson and David M. O'Brien. 1993. Abortion and American Politics. Chatham House:Chatham, New Jersey.
2. Pisano, Marina. "Roe v. Wade at 30". San Antonio Express News. Jan. 20, 2003:1A.
3. Elliott Institute. After Abortion.org. Facts Sheets & Healing: The unChoice.com. 2/3/2009.
4. McQuarrie, Brian. "Guard, clinic at odds at abortion hearing." Boston Globe, April16, 1999.
5. Elliott Institute. After Abortion.org. Facts Sheets & Healing:The UnChoice.com.
Rue, V.M., P.K. Coleman, J.J. Rue, and D. C. Reardon. "Induced abortion and traumatic stress: a preliminary comparison of American and Russian Women." Medical Science Monitor. Sept. 23, 2004. Oc:10(10):SR5-16. E-pub.
6. Guttmacher Institute. "State Policies in Brief:An Overview of Abortion Laws".
www.guttmacher.org. January 1, 2009.
7. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jan. 30, 2009. "Freedom of Choice Act."
http://wn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act.
8.Butts, Charlie. Jan. 28, 2009. "The fight against FOCA begins."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id-399060.
9. Tumulty, Karen and Viveca Novak. January 27, 2003. "Under the Radar-Thirty years after Roe v. Wade." Time. Vol. 161. No. 3:38-41.
10. National Right to Life. http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html.
2/2/2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
