# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House's 20-week abortion ban heads to the Senate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Late-term abortion ban faces certain Senate defeat; Shannon Bream explains on 'Special Report.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.

Proponents of legal abortion believe abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives, while abortion bans endanger pregnant people not seeking abortions, and deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

Opponents of legal abortion believe abortion is murder because life begins at conception, that abortion creates a culture in which life is disposable, and that increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.

The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

Pregnancy-related maternal deaths could increase 20% in US states with abortion bans. Amanda Stevenson, Sociology Professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained, "People with resources are more likely to make it out of state or find out about medication abortions. People who can't are more likely to have health issues, to live in poverty and have less access to resources." People of color are especially likely to be in the latter category and, thus, negatively impacted by abortion bans.

The predicted 20% maternal death rate does not include those who will die from "back alley" or illegal abortions because legal options were not available.

Globally 45% of abortions are unsafe, 97% of which take place in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws."
Read More

Pro 2

Abortion bans endanger healthcare for those not seeking abortions.

Medical treatment for nonviable pregnancies is often exactly the same as an abortion.

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the uterine cavity. About one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and they are nonviable. Bleeding from ectopic pregnancies caused 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths, and ectopic pregnancies were the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.

One out of every ten pregnancies ends in miscarriage. The drugs used for medication abortions are the only treatment recommended for early miscarriages. For later or complicated miscarriages, the same surgical procedure used for abortions is recommended.

While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an "on-demand" abortion for fear of liability or prosecution.

Further, bans are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions. For example, some already wrongly view Plan B (the morning after pill) as an abortifacient and are thinking of including it in abortion bans.
Read More

Pro 3

Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, "eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.... In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren't in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce."

After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing and transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score, increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance. Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes.

And the consequences can be much more dire. "If a woman of childbearing age dies, it has enormous economic consequences.... It's someone who society has invested in and who has many productive economic years ahead of them," according to David Slusky, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas. Often, death also removes a wage-earner and caregiver from the household.

60% of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood development markers.

The Turnaway Study concluded, "Abortion does not harm women," and "Women who receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child later."
Read More

Con 1

Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.

Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human.

Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, "life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet." The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans.

Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.

Pope Francis explained, "Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.... At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear.... Scientifically, it is a human life."

That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: "I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face-that I can't even imagine facing-seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn't even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses."
Read More

Con 2

Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.

Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to " throwaway culture," Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, "abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem."

Tobin previously declared legal abortion a "brutalization of the American heart" on par with the "dehumanization of the undocumented" immigrants.

Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: "Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we'd like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past."

As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.

"[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation," according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability."
Read More

Con 3

Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.

Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years.

Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care.

Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: "In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions."

Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991).

Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. Throughout much of Western history, abortion was not considered a criminal act as long as it was performed before "quickening" (the first detectable movement of the fetus, which can occur between 13-25 weeks of pregnancy).

2. In 1821, Connecticut became the first US state to criminalize abortion.

3. The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

4. Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a "slow yet steady pace" since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019.

5. 60% of women seeking abortions already had other children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion - Top Arguments For and Against - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Pro Choice side says women should have control of their bodies. Pro Lifers say abortion is murder. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Opposing Abortion and Euthanasia

# data[].attributes.body
Advocating legalized Abortions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Against:

For those people who are against abortion the reasons may be because of religion. In some religion abortion is not right. Another reason may include some people believe abortion is murder and is not morally right as well. When women get pregnant for not being properly protected during sex; people include this as their fault and they shouldn't kill a fetus because of their lack of responsibility.

Favor:

For other people who are favor of abortion the reasons maybe because they believe women should have right to choose if they want a fetus or not inside them. People also believe banning abortion interferes with freedom of choice.

Why we need abortion to be open for women:

I believe there are points where abortion is right. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. There are situations everyday where we need abortion. People get raped everyday and because of this abuse they will end up getting impregnated. When this happens every women take situations differently. Some women will keep the fetus , while others will want it gone. I wouldn't want a women who's not mentally prepared to keep the baby. This will impact the baby in negative ways such as mentally and physically. Women get pregnant everyday, but not everyone gets to have a healthy pregnancy. Sometimes the baby is hurting inside the womb, they are having so many complications. When this happens I believe abortion is a pro choice. Let's not forget those women who get pregnant and later on gets complications and now they are risking there life. A women may want to abort , because they want to live. I think for those who are against it need to be more open minded and think about all possible situations where abortion is the only choice!
https://abortion.procon.org/https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI293xufyO2QIV01qGCh1CFwrrEAAYASAAEgLjqvD_BwE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Against: For those people who are against abortion the reasons may be because of religion. In some religion abortion is not right. Another reason may include some people believe abortion is murder and is not morally right as well. When women get pregnant for not being properly protected during sex; people include this as their...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aspen Baker: A better way to talk about abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us?" he writes in "The Abortion Memo," which he addresses to "Democratic Party Leaders" and signs "Your Imaginary Consultant." "Do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump? Do we want it so much that we give up our chance at congressional majorities?"

What David Brooks doesn't quite seem to understand is why a woman might undergo a late-term abortion at all. Indeed, his "argument" leaves the impression that he believes that women get late-term abortions simply because they can.

But Brooks was apparently misinformed. This is important, because what a man in his position of influence writes can have potential damaging consequences for real people.

The truth is that most families seeking abortions after 20 weeks do so under quite tragic circumstances. I know this because I serve on the board of directors for Planned Parenthood, an organization that takes the time to understand when and why women seek out abortions.

One real reason for abortion after 20 weeks: a doctor determines that the development of the fetus will endanger the mother's life. Another is that a doctor determines that the fetus will be unable to survive outside the womb. Several fetal abnormalities only become apparent after the second trimester, an important fact conveniently left unnoted by Brooks.

What's more, families who opt to abort do so under the advisement of a qualified health care professional (which, it should be mentioned, David Brooks is not) and far more commonly at a hospital than at an abortion clinic.

For many, it is a last resort that weighs heavily. But even at that, later abortions are extremely rare: only slightly more than 1 percent of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

By making the issue purely political, however, and suggesting access to late-term abortion be sacrificed for "the greater good" of progressive goals, Brooks makes no mention at all of these very important and relevant factors.

He disregards the very humanity at the heart of the issue, the humanity that those against abortion claim they are fighting for -- the very real emotions at the heart of any family's decision to carry a baby to term, or not.

Beyond that, he makes a mockery of journalism. He does not bother to include mention of discussions he's had with women who have had abortions at 20 weeks (because surely he has talked to some women, right?). In this omission, Brooks presents an irresponsibly one-sided view of a very serious topic, even as he frames the column as delivered through the voice of logical liberalism. Did he ask women why they had a late-term abortion, and how it made them feel?

Instead, he offers: "Do we want [late-term abortion] so much that we see our agendas on poverty, immigration, income equality and racial justice thwarted and defeated?" asks his imaginary Democratic consultant.

This is a ludicrously false choice. Brooks is apparently arguing that conservatives are able to draw off voters, particularly young ones, over the issue of abortion -- that millennial voters indicated in a poll that they are becoming less accepting of late-term abortions. But why would he promote the mistaken idea -- to millennials and others -- that women should have to choose, as he proposes, between either bodily autonomy or income equality?

Both issues are important. Neither is dispensable. And this is no time to back down.

David Brooks has a vast audience and his words have the potential to influence many Americans, including those in the halls of power. He abuses this position when he cynically reduces this issue to politics, not people. In doing so, he is dishonest about the true nature of this abortion question: the fact that measures to prevent women from controlling their own bodies are, among other things, most hurtful to poor women, immigrant women and women of color; that women already have difficulty navigating the barriers politicians put between them and their right to safe and legal abortion.

Abortion is not a bargaining chip. A woman's right to make the decisions that are best for her body is not something to be traded away for "a win" that David Brooks's faux consultant would deem more worthwhile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
who david brooks leaves out of his abortion argument (opinion)  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who David Brooks leaves out of his abortion argument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us?" he writes in "The Abortion Memo," which he addresses to "Democratic Party Leaders" and signs "Your Imaginary Consultant." "Do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Both sides of the abortion rights debate are preparing for a busy year of fights over when and how abortions may be performed in states across the country - and both sides are developing a long-term strategy that could involve a new challenge to Roe v. Wade.

While it is still early in the year, several measures seeking to limit abortion rights have already advanced in Republican-dominated states.

Mississippi's state House passed a bill on Friday that would ban abortions more than 15 weeks after conception, a bill that would amount to the strictest limit in any state. Twenty other states ban abortions more than 20 weeks after conception, and Missouri's state legislature will consider a similar bill this month.

Other states are likely to take up bills aimed at banning abortions on the basis of fetal anomalies such as Down syndrome. Bills to ban those procedures have been introduced in Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Utah - all states where Republicans hold control of both legislative chambers.

West Virginia's legislature heard testimony this week on a bill that would eliminate Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.

The South Dakota state Senate is likely to begin debate on a bill that would require oral and written statements be given to any woman seeking an abortion. And Ohio's legislature is likely to take up a ban on intact dilation and extraction abortions, a procedure that abortion rights opponents deride as "dismemberment."

On the other side of the debate, the California state Senate has already passed a bill that would require state colleges and universities to provide medication-induced abortions.

Opponents of abortion rights say conservative states are searching for opportunities to restrict those rights that will withstand court challenges.

"States continue to search, up against Roe v. Wade, where they can put their big toe and have an impact, what jurisdiction they can find to try to put limits on abortion," said Sue Swayze, the National Pro-Life Women's Caucus coordinator for the Susan B. Anthony List, which backs candidates who oppose abortion rights.

But supporters of abortion rights say they are seeing a new wave of legislation that would proactively protect those rights. Eighty-nine bills supporting abortion rights in one form or another have been introduced this year in 25 state legislatures, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. Some observers believe the explosion of pro-abortion rights legislation stems from years in which Republicans made big legislative gains.

"The bills are a reaction to all of the abortion restrictions that have been moving, but also it is a reflection of the fact that there is a lot more energy around progressive causes such as abortion rights," said Elizabeth Nash, the institute's senior state issues manager. "We're seeing pushback against social conservatives right now."

Some blue states are racing to codify rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. In the last few years, states such as Oregon and Delaware have guaranteed a woman's right to seek an abortion.

This year, the Rhode Island legislature is debating whether to remove old and obsolete anti-abortion language from state code - language that required spousal notice to receive an abortion and that declares that life begins at conception.

The Rhode Island effort underscores a deeper fear among abortion rights supporters. Those laws still on the books were made moot by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, but they could come back into effect if Roe is somehow overturned. Abortion rights backers see conservative efforts to stem those rights as a chance to mount a new challenge meant to be heard by the Supreme Court.

"There is a real interest in some state legislatures to enact a law that will be a direct challenge to Roe," Nash said. "It takes several years for a case to make it to the Supreme Court, and so in the intervening time the composition of the court could change."

Swayze, the top Susan B. Anthony List official, said her opponents on the pro-abortion rights side have had more success in courts than in legislatures in recent years. She said state efforts to advance new restrictions are part of a broader campaign to find out just how far courts are willing to allow states to go.

"States are looking for, until Roe v. Wade gets changed or challenged correctly or something happens there, how much jurisdiction do I have? How far can I go to regulate these things?" she said. "That at some point becomes a legal strategy."

The debate over abortion rights comes against a backdrop of rapidly falling abortion rates, though the two sides disagree on the causes behind the decline.

Data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found 652,000 abortions were conducted in 46 states in 2014, the last year for which data is available. That was the fewest number of abortions conducted since the high court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The CDC found teen pregnancies had dropped 55 percent between 1990 and 2011, and early data suggests that number has fallen even more in recent years.

The Guttmacher Institute, which collects data from all 50 states, pegged the number of abortions in 2011 at 926,000. That is far below the 1.6 million abortions performed in 1990.

"People are choosing less frequently to be parents, and women who are pregnant are choosing less frequently to abort the baby," James Studnicki, vice president of statistics at the anti-abortion rights Charlotte Lozier Institute, told The Hill last year.

Nash said both increased use of contraception and the decreasing availability of abortion services in some states are behind the declining abortion rates.

"By limiting access in that way and not doing anything to reduce the need for an abortion, it's quite conceivable that fewer abortions are a result of less access," Nash said. Much of the recent decline, she added, "had to do with the use of contraception and reduction in the overall [rate of] unintended pregnancy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Both sides of the abortion rights debate are preparing for a busy year of fights over when and how abortions may be performed in states across the country - and both sides are developing a long-term strategy that could involve a new challenge to Roe v. Wade.