Introduction
In today’s society, one of the issues in discussion is when it is authorized to take a life. Murder due to any reason cannot be justified even if the whole world unites to provide a reason for it. Abortion is mentally and psychologically damaging for a woman and many women never recover from this loss. It should be prohibited for many reasons. Most of these reasons are related to the risks associated with abortion. If for any reason abortion is inevitable, other options should be chosen to avoid the murder of an innocent life.
The article written by William Alex Pridemore and Joshua D. Freilich, named “The Impact of State Laws Protecting Abortion Clinics and Reproductive Rights on Crimes against Abortion” is a hypothesis that explains the effects of laws in prohibition of abortion. Most of the U.S. states have passed laws against abortion and have implied strict punishments for violation of the laws. The hypothesis drawn from this article suggests that the laws had a strict effect on the rate of abortion-related crimes in states that prohibit this crime. The authors’ research data proves the application and advantages of clinical and reproductive rights. This discussion contextualizes the results that are obtained from the regression and controls the application of laws against abortion cases discusses the alternative explanations of the found data and suggests future modifications and implications required for the legislations and policy that states should apply in more research and development related to abortion issue (Frelich et al., 2007).
There is very little attention given to this severe issue, which is one of the most sensitive issues in United States society, but unfortunately, it receives very little attention and consideration on its adverse effects and effects that it has on the crime rate. This issue was covered on television in a 1994 Florida case in which a doctor who was involved in abortion was shot in the hospital.
Discussion
The option of alternatives in case an abortion is needed is emphasized for many reasons. There are child protection institutes that are fighting for the cause of child protection and are providing safety and protection to children who have lost their parents or who are abandoned. Parents who do not have children also are referring to these institutes to adopt these children and take care of them. This option is ethical in case of abortion and it is suggested in most states. There are also some psychological and physical effects of abortion, women undergoing abortion are susceptible to infection, extreme blood loss, and even death. Another effect of abortion is the increase in the chance of breast cancer. During the pregnancy as the woman undergoes development in her breast structure, an interruption in the development process may lead to variation in hormones and eventually distortion of cells, leading to breast cancer. This fact can also be justified by data on breast cancer cases, which indicates a large number of women who have an abortion in their lifetime.
The laws against abortion in the U.S. have been active since 1965 and until now most states have banned the procedure. There are some exceptions as in the case of rape a mother may want an abortion and it is allowed in this situation. The abortion laws in 1973 have made null and void the state laws now and have introduced laws for the country. In these laws, the woman is given a 24-hour decision period until the procedure starts and her guardian or parents are notified if the mother is less than 18 years of age. Some institutions prohibit the abortion process after the woman has entered the third phase of her pregnancy period (Frelich et al., pp. 615).
The decline in abortion rate in 2008-11 is considered due to strict allegations most of which were in effect till 2011. There is a decrease in the abortion rate in 44 States of Columbia, and some states with even few restrictions like California. The data collected, however, does not confirm that the decrease was only caused by the restrictions. According to this research, the rate of abortions was not in decline rather it stayed between 40 and 42% from 2008 to 2011. Similarly, the rate of unplanned births dropped to 1 fifth.
A more accurate study that gives an alternate explanation of the decrease in the abortion rate in 2008-11 states that the rate was at its minimum in this period, and the rate of unintended pregnancies fell by 13 to 18% is more accurate evidence of the decline as a reason of the legislations. However, some factors are said to have been involved in the decrease in the rate after 2011. Most of the restrictions did not keep women from undergoing abortion rather the ban on Medical Coverage and the number of trips that are required before undergoing the process of abortion did. The abortion opposition also contributed to raising the cost of the abortion process and is suggested to cause a decrease in the rate. For example, the 2013 Law of Texas state that made restrictions on the abortion process and its period is suggested to have contributed to the decline.
The data for a complete explanation of the decline in the abortion rate is still being acquired. However, some states show significant decreases in the rate, like Ohio, Maine, Texas, and Oklahoma, by making it more difficult to undergo abortion, both by cutting the funding for family planning programs and by making it difficult for organized family planning providers to access the general public. The ban applied to Texas health organizations that provide abortion or help in the planning process caused a great reduction in the number of women who referred to these organizations for the process, and this reduction was more significant in 2013. Similarly, defunding Planned Parenthood programs that were applied both federally and on state levels has caused a reduction in the rate significantly after 2011.
The enforcement of these laws as described by the authors could have resulted in a backlash effect that was predicted by various authors (Sherman, 1993, Pichardo-Almazar, & Rivera, 1999) in their research that state applications of these reproductive laws and access to abortion clinics could have resulted in higher rates of the crime in the states where the law was not this strict or absent.
The evidence for a decrease in the rate of abortion after 2011 is still insufficient. However, it validates the common perception that refraining women’s access to family planning facilities not only improved women’s health and domestic rights but also resulted in a significant reduction in the abortion rate.
Conclusion
The examples in the article make it seem reasonable to believe that these laws had a discouraging effect related to abortion. Unfortunately, due to a lack of sufficient data and economic or social legislature’s effect on the rate of abortion, the author of the article did not fully prove the reasons behind the decrease in the rate. However, it encourages us to research this issue and further the hypothesis. In my opinion, the state laws against this inhumane act should be more severe and the culprits who perform such an act are to be punished and discouraged despite the chances of backlash. The government should discourage the clinics that help perform the process or provide suggestions, as it is our moral responsibility to care for our children and women.
