# data[].attributes.headline
What is life?/ What dos it mean to be alive?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is life?/ What dos it mean to be alive?

# data[].attributes.body
Having life. Even though you are breathing, it doesn’t necessarily mean you're alive. Life is a precious thing that can be taken away at any given moment, so it’s best you live your life to the fullest every day and don’t take it for granted.  In my opinion, living is after the fetus has its first heartbeat.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are most people against abortion or okay with it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are most people against abortion or okay with it?

# data[].attributes.body
55% of the US is pro-choice. 39% is pro-life. 5% is either mixed, neither or unsure,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-choice" has risen in the past year to 55%, its highest level in decades, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday.

That increase mainly was driven by Democrats, wrote Lydia Saad, the polling firm's director for U.S. social research, in a summary of the survey's findings. She attributed the shift to the recent Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting a possible end to Roe v. Wade.

Gallup surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. adults by telephone over three weeks beginning May 2 - the day Politico published a draft opinion suggesting that the Supreme Court could soon overturn Roe v. Wade. That decision would enable many states to dramatically restrict or ban abortions.

The poll found the highest pro-choice affiliation that Gallup has measured since 1995, when 56% of Americans identified as such. That number had fluctuated between 45% and 50% for the past decade before jumping six points in the latest survey.

"The prospect of the Supreme Court overturning the case that established women's right to seek an abortion has clearly jolted a segment of Americans into identifying with the pro-choice side of the issue and expressing more unequivocal support for abortion being legal," Saad wrote.

Democrats' pro-choice identification rose from 70% to 88% in the past year. There was no significant change among Republicans, independents, men or older Americans, Gallup said.

The survey also found that 52% of Americans consider abortion morally acceptable, the first time a majority has expressed that view since Gallup began asking the question in 2001. A record-low 38% call it morally wrong.

Some of the survey's other notable findings:

Some 39% of Americans identify as pro-life, the lowest percentage since 1996.

Pro-choice identification increased by nine percentage points to 61% among women, 12 points to 67% among adults aged 18 to 34 and nine points to 58% among adults ages 35 to 54.

Support for abortion being legal under any or most circumstances jumped among Democrats, jumping from 69% to 82%, and among adults aged 18 to 34, rising from 52% to 63%. It's higher among women (59%) than men (45%).

Support for abortion being broadly legal increased seven points over the past year among political independents, but not for Republicans or Americans over the age of 55.

A majority of Americans (55%) are generally opposed to abortion in the second three trimester, while 36% think it should be legal. Some 71% believe abortion should be illegal in the third trimester.

A note on language

In keeping with AP Style, NPR - and many other U.S. news outlets- avoids the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" except when they are part of the name of a group (the Public Editor's office explained this policy in a 2019 column).

Gallup specifically asked people whether they considered themselves to be pro-choice or pro-life, explaining in its summary that those are the "prevailing terms used by the two major sides of the issue" in the national discussion.

Still, it acknowledged that Americans' interpretation of the terms can change in response to major events - and that this could help account for the recent spike in pro-choice identification.

"In the aftermath of the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, being pro-life may be more associated than ever with being against Roe v. Wade," Gallup said. "This could have pushed some former pro-life identifiers who feel ambivalently about abortion but favor Roe v. Wade to now put themselves in the pro-choice camp."

There is broad public support for keeping Roe

The survey's findings fit with broader public opinion polling about Americans' views on abortion and Roe.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released mid-May, for example, found that some 64% of Americans opposed overturning Roe (compared to 58% according to Gallup).

NPR's survey similarly found that the leaked draft opinion was having a galvanizing effect on Democrats. Two-thirds of Democrats said the contents of the draft opinion made them more likely to vote in the November midterm elections, compared to just 40% of Republicans - who are favored to regain control of the House and possibly the Senate this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In a new U.S. poll, a majority identify as 'pro-choice' for the first time in decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-choice" has risen in the past year to 55%, its highest level in decades, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. That increase mainly was driven by Democrats, wrote Lydia Saad, the polling firm's director for U.S. social research, in a summary of the survey's findings.

# data[].attributes.body
24 states. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Other states are gestational limited, ban blocked, legal, or legal but limited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New York Times is tracking the status of abortion laws in each state following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.headline
What does representative mean in the context of my question?

# data[].attributes.subject
What does representative mean in the context of my question?

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of abortion, a representative is basically a leader. The person who makes the laws for each state would be considered a representative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As per the Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives makes and passes federal laws. The House is one of Congress’s two chambers (the other is the U.S. Senate), and part of the federal government’s legislative branch. The number of voting representatives in the House is fixed by law at no more…

# data[].attributes.headline
Who was the first known person to get an abortion?

# data[].attributes.subject
Who was the first known person to get an abortion?

# data[].attributes.body
the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Follow the journey of abortion law in the United States — from criminalization in the late 1800s to legalization in the early 1970s — and the ongoing battles for abortion access.

# data[].attributes.body
1846- the American Medical Association was formed, members in the AMA believed they should have the power to decide when an abortion could legally be performed.

# data[].attributes.body
1880- abortion became criminalized, all states had laws to restrict abortion unless it was needed to save the life or health of a patient ( doctors were in power to make this decision which was 95% of men at the time)

# data[].attributes.body
1910- led to several decades of increased immigration

# data[].attributes.body
1930- people began doing unsafe and illegal abortions which lead to nearly 2,700 women dying due to this.

# data[].attributes.body
1955-  a conference on Abortion legalization, this is when they decided to rewrite the law

# data[].attributes.body
1962- thousands of women took a drug “thalidomide” to ease pregnancy symptoms, but came with severe birth defects. The thalidomide fallout brought greater support for abortion law reform.

# data[].attributes.body
1964- abortion law reform activists registered their first national group: the Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA)

# data[].attributes.body
1966- Nine well-respected doctors were sued in California for performing abortions on women who had been exposed to rubella, a disease known to cause birth defects. Doctors across the country came to the defense of the San Francisco Nine, including the deans of 128 medical schools. This resulted in one of the first abortion reform measures in the United States. California amended its prohibition on abortion to allow hospital committees to approve requests for abortion

# data[].attributes.body
1969- NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) was established. NARAL was the first national group created solely to campaign for the legalization of abortion, marking the start of direct action to repeal abortion bans.

# data[].attributes.body
late 1960s- a nationwide effort was underway to reform abortion laws in nearly every state. Health care providers, advocates, clergy members, and the legal community lobbied state legislatures and went to court to overturn statutes that had been in place since before the turn of the century

# data[].attributes.body
Between 1967-1973- four states — Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington — repealed their abortion bans entirely, while 13 others enacted reforms that expanded exceptions. Instead of just allowing for abortion to save the patient’s life, they now allowed it in instances where a pregnancy was dangerous for the physical or mental health of a patient, fetal abnormalities, and when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

# data[].attributes.body
1970- New York legalized abortion. In the first two years after abortion was legalized in New York, two-thirds of the abortions performed in the state were on patients who had traveled from other states  — most of which still outlawed abortion. At the time, other states that had legalized abortion required patients to be state residents.

# data[].attributes.body
1973- Roe v Wade occurred. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects the right to abortion.  In particular, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Roe v Wade protected the right to abortion in all 50 states, making abortion services safer and more accessible throughout the country. The decision also set a legal precedent that affected dozens of subsequent Supreme Court cases.

# data[].attributes.body
1976- Hyde amendment was put into place.
The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory and racist policy that prevents federal dollars from being used in government insurance programs like Medicaid for abortion services (except in instances of incest, rape, or life-threatening risk to the pregnant person).  The legislation was created by Rep. Henry Hyde. “I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman,” he said. “Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill.” Because of centuries of systemic racism and bias, Medicaid disproportionately serves Black, Latino, and LGBTQ+ communities — people who already face other barriers to care and economic opportunity. Despite the federal law, 16 states currently include abortion in their Medicaid programs using state funds. (The remaining 34 states and the District of Columbia do not have abortion coverage in their Medicaid programs due to the Hyde Amendment). Thanks in large part to the advocacy of reproductive justice organizations, in 2021 the Biden-Harris administration became the first administration in decades to exclude the Hyde Amendment from its presidential budget

# data[].attributes.body
1984- Former President Ronald Reagan introduced the Mexico City policy, otherwise known as the global gag rule... The global gag rule prevents foreign organizations that receive U.S. health aid from providing information on and referrals for abortions or advocating for abortion access. Every president since Reagan who supports abortion access has rescinded the global gag rule, while every president since Reagan who opposes abortion access has reinstated it. That includes President Donald Trump, who not only reinstated it, but expanded the global gag rule to make it even more harmful

# data[].attributes.body
1992- Planned parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey occurred. This landmark case reaffirmed that the Constitution protects the right to abortion. However, Casey created an “undue burden” framework, under which laws restricting access to abortion would be judged. This framework made it more difficult to challenge laws that were less than absolute prohibitions on abortion — requiring challenges to show that a law has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a patient seeking an abortion. Following Casey, state politicians passed numerous medically unnecessary abortion restrictions across the country which courts have found do not impose an undue burden

# data[].attributes.body
2007- Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America The Supreme Court upheld the first federal legislation to criminalize abortion, allowing Congress to ban certain second-trimester abortion procedures — which are sometimes the safest and best way to protect a patient’s health. Because the legislation does not contain an exception for the patient’s health, the Supreme Court effectively overruled a key component of Roe v. Wade: that the patient’s health must be of paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access.

# data[].attributes.body
2016: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

The Supreme Court ruled that two Texas abortion restrictions were unconstitutional because they would shut down most abortion providers in the state and impose an “undue burden” on access to safe, legal abortion in Texas.

# data[].attributes.body
The pro-choice argument is basically stating that you aren't required to have an abortion... But it's your choice on if you want to abort or keep it

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-choice mean advocating legalized abortion

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-life is opposing abortion and euthanasia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are those who hold that contraception unfairly manipulates the workings of nature, and others who cannot see the fetus as a child until the umbilical cord is cut. Invoking an almost religious fervor on both sides of the issue, abortion is one of the most emotionally potent present political controversies. Motherhood is a powerful institution in American life, and both the "Pro-choice" (supporting a woman's right to choose) and the "Pro-life" (anti-abortion) forces see the other as attacking the foundations of the mother-infant bond.

Social analysis argues forcibly for the need for safe, legal and affordable abortions. Approximately 1 million women had abortions annually until the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, and abortion had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation (40 deaths/100,000 abortions compared to 40 deaths/100,000 live births according to National Abortion Rights Action league.) An estimated 9000 rape victims become pregnant each year (FBI 1973); 100,000 cases of incest occur yearly (National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, 1978). Two-thirds of teenage pregnancies are not planned, because many do not have adequate access to contraceptives (NARAL). And the taxpayer price of supporting a child on welfare is far greater than that of a Medicaid abortion. But the issue that provokes such anger surrounds the fetus's right to life--its status as a potential human being. Anti-abortionist proponents usually take the position that conception is life and therefore abortion is murder and violates the rights of the unborn, or that there is an inherent value in life and abortion is murder because it destroys that value.

The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus had no constitutional rights until the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is incapable of functioning independently from the mother until that time. Right-to-Lifers claim that because the fetus will develop into a human being, it demands the same paternalistic protection that is extended to animals, children and others subject to exploitation and maltreatment. The fetus must be accorded the same constitutional rights as its mother.

Two arguments delineate the problems in giving the fetus these equivalent rights. The first looks at individual rights as the products of a social doctrine. Animals and children are unavoidably present within a society, and to ensure that they remain functioning members of that society they must be protected from exploitation by other societal members. Different political platforms advocate different rights--the right to free medical care, the right to minimal taxation--but all demarcate the interaction of the individual within the group. A person's rights protect him from future harassment, but to actually obtain those rights he must already be a member of the group providing him with those protections. An Australian cannot lay claim to American rights until he is on American soil (or its equivalent). He may have a guarantee that should he enter the United States, he will be accorded many of those protections. But the guarantee depends on his entrance onto American territory. In analogous fashion, until the fetus is actually, not potentially, a member of society, it does not have constitutional rights.

One could object that the fetus in the womb is as signally present in society as the child in the crib, that each are equally members of society. Yet surely the conception of "member" involves some minimal interaction. The fetus reacts to society of the outside world solely through the medium of the mother. Strictly speaking, then, society has no legal responsibility to the fetus, but rather to the mother.

This seems like a rather harsh position, but we can distinguish between the rights of the fetus and the action that a mother might feel morally compelled to take. Consider the following situation: suppose you were to return home one day and find a stranger camped out in your living room and peacefully eating the ham sandwich you saved for dinner. You would be tempted to throw him out in the street. Almost everyone could agree that you had the right to eject him.

But suppose he told you that he could not live outside of your house; perhaps one of his enemies waits outside your door. Moreover, he informs you that he needs food and clothing and someone to talk to--he needs your presence much of the day. He becomes more demanding: you must work less, earn less, give up jogging.

Introduce a complication: your food is strictly rationed, or perhaps your heating, on subsistence level for a single person. If the stranger stays with you, your life will be seriously endangered. You might be very upset, but if it came down to the wire you would probably kick him out of the house. Again, most people would agree you were within your rights to do so.

The difficulty of course arises when it would be possible for you to support him and take care of him, but you would rather not. You might agree if the demand were only for an evening, but hesitate if it were for the rest of your life. Do rights then depend upon the time factor? You could claim a certain moral responsibility towards another human being. But it is hard to say that he has the right to force you to support him. You are not legally required to help an old lady across the street.

One counterargument declares that willing intercourse implies acceptance of a possible pregnancy--that in effect you invited the stranger in, that you knew what you were in for and that he now has the right to demand your help. But faulty contraception is like a broken window. When you return to your suite and find your stereo missing, do you accede the thief's right to take it because your window is easily pried open? The abortion issue thus forces a clarification of the nature of the individual and his social rights. Although we may feel morally constrained to protect the future child, the fetus does not have the right to force us to do so. In the traditional dichotomy of church and state, to restrict abortion is to legislate morality.

The staunchest opposition comes from those who hold absolutely that conception is life. But belief in the inherent value of life is not a trite axiom: it avows some faith in the quality of existence beyond the moral injunction "Thou shalt not kill." It becomes easy to see as hypocritical those anti-abortionists--particularly men--who condone extra-marital intercourse (or even intramarital intercourse) yet would refuse to financially and emotionally support the child conceived because of faulty contraception. The only morally consistent value-of-life position is to have intercourse only if one is willing to accept a child as a possible consequence, and participate in the quality of the child's life. This in part lies behind the Catholic prohibition of premarital sex.

As a personal doctrine few would reproach those who follow it. But pragmatics belie its application to all society, rape being the prime instance where the woman is not free to choose to become pregnant. The restriction of federal support to cases of rape, incest and probable death of the mother suggests an interesting quality-of-life argument: that potentiality is not absolute but must be prorated. Due to society's dread of incest, such a mother and her child would be spared a psychologically unbearable life. In case of danger to the mother's life we do not hear that the 'child' has potentially far more years of happy, productive life than the mother. Rather, the argument runs that the mother's life should not be sacrificed for the child who would bear such a tremendous burden.

Yet an unwanted child may be born into a household with an equally heavy psychological toll. If the potentiality of life thesis rests on an understanding of the inner qualities of life, then abortion is a necessity rather than a crime. Those who deny the right to an abortion under any circumstances fail to see that their argument undercuts itself. Abortion provides a unique understanding of the "inherent good" of existence. It is morally irresponsible to believe that a pregnancy must be brought to term even in case of the mother's death simply because it is a matter of nature and out of our hands when we have the medical means to save the mother. The case involves a comparison of the life-value of the mother and the child: the final decision must evaluate the process of existence--the value of life as it is lived. The inherent value of life cannot be an a priori constant if a choice is to be made between two lives.

Once the quality of life-as-it-is-lived is introduced into the argument, we can say that abortion provides the possibility of improving that quality. Motherhood is a remarkably special bond between mother and child, perhaps the most important relationship we ever have. It requires tremendous emotional capacities, and raising children should be one of the most conscious decisions we make. Many of those who have abortions when young have children later in life, when they are more emotionally and financially equipped to handle them. Contraception is at most 99 per cent safe, and abortion must be available to allow women the freedom to provide the optimum conditions for their child's growth.

According to a 1978 Clark University study, 83 per cent of Massachusetts supports the woman's right to choose. But the trend of recent legislation is distinctly anti-abortion, the result of an extremely well-organized and funded "Pro-life" movement (which some link to the New Right). On the federal level, the 1976-7 Hyde Amendment, a rider on the Labor-HEW appropriations bill, cut off federally funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and "medically necessary" instances, defined by the Supreme Court as long-lasting physical or psychological damage to the mother's health.

In 1977 this clause cut 99 per cent of all reimbursements (250,000-300,000 annually prior to the cut-off); this year "medically necessary" has been replaced by probable death of the mother. Military women are similarly restricted under the Dornan Amendment; the Young Amendment funds no abortions at all for Peace Corps women. Employers may refuse to include abortion coverage in their company health plan under the Beard Amendment. Fifteen states have called for a constitutional convention to introduce the prohibition of all abortions: 19 more would fulfill the requisite number of 34.

In Massachusetts the Doyle Bill would cut off state funds in the same manner as the Hyde Amendment. Formerly an adjunct to the budget it was passed and signed as a bill this year. Appealed by MORAL (the Massachusetts Organization for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), the bill is under injunction and pending review by the Federal District Court on the basis of a Supreme Court decision that all medically necessary services must be available to the poor. As of last May, hospitals are no longer required to perform abortions upon demand except in case of probable death to the mother. Legislation restricting abortions to hospitals with full obstetrical care (rather than women's health clinics), now before the Massachusetts House, could place the woman in a double bind. Also under Massachusetts debate is an "Informed Consent" bill which essentially amounts to harrassment: the bill requires spouse and parental notification, with consent of parents or courts for minors, full information concerning the viability and appearance of the fetus, description of the aborting technique, anad a 24-hour waiting period after the 'information session' before the abortion could be obtained.

There is a real danger that anti-abortion legislation could become increasingly more restrictive. It already discriminates against women in lower economic brackets. The power of the pro-life people should not be underestimated: they have targeted 12 Congressmen for defeat in 1980, among them Morris Udall and Birch Bayh. We need to inform our politicians of their pro-choice constituency and reverse the further tightening of the over-restrictive and discriminatory legislation.

Tanya Luhrmann '80-3 is working for Abortion Rights Action Week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pro-Choice Argument | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are those who hold that contraception unfairly manipulates the workings of nature, and others who cannot see the fetus

# data[].attributes.body
Approximately 1 million women had abortions annually until the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, and abortion had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation (40 deaths/100,000 abortions compared to 40 deaths/100,000 live births according to National Abortion Rights Action league.)

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus had no constitutional rights until the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is incapable of functioning independently from the mother until that time.

# data[].attributes.body
An estimated 9000 rape victims become pregnant each year (FBI 1973); 100,000 cases of incest occur yearly (National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, 1978). Two-thirds of teenage pregnancies are not planned, because many do not have adequate access to contraceptives (NARAL). And the taxpayer price of supporting a child on welfare is far greater than that of a Medicaid abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
Right-to-Lifers claim that because the fetus will develop into a human being, it demands the same paternalistic protection that is extended to animals, children and others subject to exploitation and maltreatment. The fetus must be accorded the same constitutional rights as its mother.

# data[].attributes.body
the staunchest opposition comes from those who hold absolutely that conception is life. But belief in the inherent value of life is not a trite axiom: it avows some faith in the quality of existence beyond the moral injunction "Thou shalt not kill." It becomes easy to see as hypocritical those anti-abortionists--particularly men--who condone extra-marital intercourse (or even intramarital intercourse) yet would refuse to financially and emotionally support the child conceived because of faulty contraception. The only morally consistent value-of-life position is to have intercourse only if one is willing to accept a child as a possible consequence, and participate in the quality of the child's life. This in part lies behind the Catholic prohibition of premarital sex.

# data[].attributes.body
an unwanted child may be born into a household with an equally heavy psychological toll

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion provides a unique understanding of the "inherent good" of existence. It is morally irresponsible to believe that a pregnancy must be brought to term even in case of the mother's death simply because it is a matter of nature and out of our hands when we have the medical means to save the mother.

# data[].attributes.body
Most on the pro-life side need to better understand why abortion is not a constitutional right before we can address this argument effectively.

# data[].attributes.body
According to a 1978 Clark University study, 83 per cent of Massachusetts supports the woman's right to choose

# data[].attributes.body
There is a real danger that anti-abortion legislation could become increasingly more restrictive. It already discriminates against women in lower economic brackets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion has always been a contentious issue. We need to understand fundamental pro-life arguments and be ready to speak truth with love.

# data[].attributes.body
They believe human life starts at conception.. "more than 5,000 biologists from academic institutions worldwide were surveyed to answer this question. 96% of biologists affirmed that human life begins at fertilization."

# data[].attributes.body
compares the situation to bible scriptures

# data[].attributes.body
Pro-life people are normally christians.

# data[].attributes.body
The heart of the issue isn’t the law. The reality of human life – when does it start, why does it matter – is what determines the interpretation of our legal rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Upon conception, a Homo sapiens zygote exists.
Every human being is precious to God. Jesus made that clear on the cross! Every person is an image-bearer of God Himself – even before birth. As Psalm 139:13-14 explains (NLT):

13 You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.