Abortion regulations arbitrary, unjust

March 10, 2016 — by Vibha Seshadri and Isabelle Yang

Remember when you began walking as a child? Your parents and relatives would test your endurance by giving you an endpoint to reach, and just when you thought you had made it, they would move further back, making you walk more. In this case, they were making you do more because you needed to  learn how to walk. 

Remember when you began walking as a child? Your parents and relatives would test your endurance by giving you an endpoint to reach, and just when you thought you had made it, they would move further back, making you walk more. In this case, they were making you do more because you needed to  learn how to walk.

Now imagine someone playing a game similar to this, one where the person shows you your destination but snatches it away the moment you are about to step into it. For many women around the nation, the journey to this end goal is similar to the experience of trying to get an abortion.

Most women who have abortions do so in their first trimester, when they either have the option of having a medical abortion or aspiration abortion. The latter of the two procedures requires taking two pills, approximately 72 hours apart, and a checkup to ensure the abortion was successful. A medical abortion, on the other hand, can be done in a matter of minutes. According to ourbodiesourselves.org, both procedures pose at least 10 times less risk than actually continuing pregnancy.

Yet, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws are making getting an abortion harder and harder for women, especially in states in which abortion is frowned upon.

States, such as Texas, that do this are attempting to make abortion de facto illegal. This is unfair to those who believed that their government supported their right to an abortion. Women, especially younger girls who have been sexually assaulted, are not in a position to sacrifice thousands of dollars to travel across borders to get the medical help they want.

According to Texas’ Omnibus Abortion Bill, abortion providers must make sure the hallways are 8 feet wide, and they must have hospital admitting privileges. These regulations, if unmet, can be reason enough to close down abortion clinics. In fact, there are only two clinics in Arizona and none in Louisiana. In Missouri, Maine, Arkansas, Wyoming and Mississippi, there is only one abortion clinic open in the entire state.

The Center for Disease Prevention and Control said that legal abortions end in death 0.00073 percent of the time, showing that abortions are safe. Thus, lawmakers and religious figureheads should not be attempting to control women’s rights to their bodies.

In fact, no one but the mother has the right to say that a fetus. It is more important that the woman, who already has connections in this world and potential does not have those qualities thwarted by being denied the right to her own body and life planning.

The 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey states that women should not be faced with an undue burden in abortion regulations. However, TRAP laws do place an incredible burden on many women seeking to obtain an abortion.

For this reason, the Supreme Court is now debating Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in which Whole Woman’s health is challenging Texas’s laws. If the court rules 4-4, the TRAP laws will remain constitutional, which will place remaining abortion clinics in harm's way. The hope for Whole winning depends on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote. The decision will be announced in June.

Those who support TRAP laws claim they are doing so to promote women’s health. But what is healthy about forcing rape victims to carry an unwanted child? Or for forcing a woman to carry the weight of a life they feel unprepared for?

Abortion providers need to remain free from unfair TRAP laws so they can operate properly for the benefit of women who rely on them.

2 views this week