Women's Health Care Under Attack at UNC

Elective abortion is a procedure whereby a sexually active woman and man are relieved of the consequences of iresponsible sexual behavior by destroying a new life which they have created. You may call that liberation or reproductive rights but it has nothing to do with health care.

Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure that should be discussed between a women and her doctor only. No one has the right to tell a woman what or what not to do with her body. Abortion has everything to do with Women's Health Care.

Sorry but if it's between a woman and her doctor then she herself should pay for it. The feminists can't have it both ways. They can't say I'll do what I like with my own body (it's another body they are destroying, not their own) and no one else had better try to interfere - except when it comes to paying for it. Then it suddenly becomes everyone else's business. Isn't it a trifle irresponsible to expect the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to bale me out for my negligent behavior. It is even worse to try to give that practice a patina of respectability by calling it health care, especally when it is neither healthy for mother nor child.

Financial considerations aside, abortion is the taking of human life, and that is not a private matter, it is everyone's business.

first off, are you insinuating that any two people having sex are irresponsible, simply because they are sexually active? because any number of educated adults can tell you that even with protection, there is a slight risk of pregnancy. and I think you have a misunderstanding of how university health insurance works if you think 'the taxpayer' is carrying the burden of every abortion. also, I'm aware that this is unrelated and juvenile of me, but the word you were looking for was BAILout. not bale. those are typically associated with hay.

Well actually I'm not insinuating. I'm saying quite unequivocally that for a man and/or woman (educated or not) to kill a new human being which they brought into existence, so they can continue the lifestyle to which they are accustomed, is indeed irresponsible. It is an injustice and is out of harmony with our Constitution's guarantee of protection to all human life. And it is wrong to engage in sexual activity with the intention of using abortion to dispose of the human life that may result from it.

There is a view prevalent today that promiscuous sex is a right, and everyone should be free to indulge in it. However, now that people are learning the facts of human biology, that view is increasingly being seen to clash with our Constitution, since it leads to the killing of a million plus unborn each year in our country. Could it be we have to learn that there is no right to promiscuous sex, and that the place for sexual activity is within monogamous marriage?

The Constitution does not recognized fertilized eggs as U.S. citizens with rights. If they did, we would have to investigate all cases of miscarriage, and all women of reproductive age would be required to live in a police state. The Supreme Court has determined that fetal life can be protected at the age of viability outside the womb, as long as the mother's life and health comes first. There are many reasons a woman would choose to have an abortion. She could be a victim of rape or incest. Her life or health may be at risk. She may be a wife and mother with her hands too full for another child. She may not be able to afford to care for a child. She may not yet be ready for childbearing. But ultimately this difficult decision should be made by her, in concert with her partner and physician--not by her government and certainly not by people who don't even know her.

Abortion rates could be lowered with better access to contraception and family planning methods (which would include abstinence) as well as increased support for parents and better awareness of the adoption services that are out there. We would never be able to stop abortion by making it illegal. We would merely push it underground and go back to the days of botched abortions and dead women, as is the case in all countries where abortion is illegal. If you want to live under Sharia law, move to Saudi Arabia.

As regards the Constitution's not recognizing fertilized eggs as citizens with rights, the Constitution says all men (meaning human beings) are entitled to certain basic rights including the right to life. Modern obstetrics tells us life begins at fertilization. Modern textbooks on the subject state explicitly that when the sperm joins the egg a new human life comes into being, which is referred to as a second patient. If that's true in medicine it must be true in law. The Supreme Court is simply wrong in not affording legal protection from conception till natural death. And please don't drag up that old straw man about a police state and Sharia law. There would be no monitoring or prosecuting of women for miscarriage or even for abortion.

Yes I know the many reasons women have for aborting. With a few exceptions none of them are serious enough to justify the taking of an innocent life. The law could easily allow abortion in those exceptional and tragic cases without allowing elective abortion. That is what the majority of Americans now would like the law to do.

The decision to end a human life in our Judeo Christian (or in any civilized) culture is never left to one individual, no matter how deeply that individual may be affected by the outcome. On the contrary the more the individual in question is impacted by the outcome the greater the need for due process of law.

Could abortion rates really be lowered by better access to contraception, as you claim? The latest studies on the question raise serious doubts about that. Contraception gives a false sense of security but fails often enough to cause a net increase in abortions it would seem. In any case when it comes to protecting human life, merely providing incentives to people to reduce the number of violations is simply not good enough. With regard to any crime, especially attacks on life, we don't just incentivize people to avoid it. We also pass laws against it. Besides if abortion is ethically acceptable and of no more moral consequence than dental surgery why bother trying to reduce it?

We would never be able to stop abortion by making it illegal, but that's also true of murder, rape, robbery, you name it. The fact is we would greatly reduce the taking of unborn life by giving it legal protection.

Protecting human life would not push women back to the days of botched abortions. In 1978, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology stated the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion" since the results of a study they completed showed that over 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians.

There are many rationalizations used to justify elective abortion. In the end none of them bear scrutiny.

I'm curious then, Sarah. If all human embryos are U.S. citizens who should have government-protected rights, what do we do with the 500,000+ "humans" stored in cryo-tanks at fertility clinics across the nation? The majority of them will never get a chance to become people. Isn't it cruel to keep children frozen forever or eventually discard them? And if we are to require all women with at-risk or unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term against their will in the name of protecting human life, why stop there? If I have a rare blood or bone marrow type and need a kidney or I will die and you are a perfect match, why can't I demand that you give me one of yours? It won't kill you, and I need it to save my life. It's rather selfish and irresponsible for you to walk around with two healthy kidneys while I die waiting for a transplant.

And I believe you grossly misrepresent the "latest studies." Use of contraceptives vastly lowers unplanned pregnancies and hence abortions. Any sane woman would much rather prevent an unwanted pregnancy than get an abortion later. That's like saying use of sunblock doesn't ultimately lower skin cancer rates. Yes, some people who use sunblock will still get skin cancer, but the chances are greatly reduced. And no one would much prefer to have lesions cut out of their body by a dermatologist than to prevent the skin cancer from happening in the first place. The studies I've seen indicate that unplanned pregnancies and abortion rates in the U.S. have slowly dropped since Roe v Wade except in most recent years when they have once again risen corresponding with the abstinence-only sex education programs being taught in schools. What a waste of taxpayer money. Teens are still having sex, just not using protection.

By the way, I was a 25-year-old virgin when I married my husband and have never had sex with anyone else. I have had three pregnancies, no abortions, and I have three healthy children today. I'm a stay-at-home mom devoted to her family and I am PRO-CHOICE, because I believe we should live in a society that trusts women to make their own decisions about what happens to our bodies. Most women do want to bear a child at some point--not because we have no other choice but because we believe the pain, hardship, and trauma of pregnancy, childbearing, and childrearing is worth it! And it is. But I can't presume to make that decision for another woman whose life and circumstances I do not know.

I invite you to examine the lives of women in countries where abortion is illegal. Note their quality of life, how they are valued in their society, their level of education and ability to participate in activities other than serving men and making babies. Then compare that to lives of women in pro-choice societies. There is no question for me which one I'd rather live in and which one I'd rather raise my daughters and son in. I know this won't make one bit of difference on your views, Sarah. You know what you know and nothing is going to change that. I just hope that someone else reading this might be able to understand what I am trying to get across.

I am just wondering why they are so against this cure. If they can't do anything to help solve a problem, the least that they should do is just to leave it alone than to criticize it.

Lara, the frozen embyos are human beings. That is the crucial point. They must be treated as such. That's why there is a controversy about the issue. They must be accorded the right to life.

I'm wondering if you're really serious when you say you think abortion rates have slowly dropped since Roe. I respectfully suggest a little investigation of the matter. You will find (get ready!) that they increased roughly tenfold in the decade immediately following Roe. They have tapered off a little since then, and are now at roughly 1.25 million per year, down from roughly 1.5 million in the mid eighties. Nearly all of those are healthy babies conceived by healthy mothers.

Your invitation to "examine the lives of women in countries where abortion is illegal" has come a bit late. I have done a lot of that over the years, and I can assure you the legalization of elective abortion has had no impact on them. Malta, Ireland and Poland are the only three countries in Europe that have restrictive abortion laws. Women fare quite well in Malta and Ireland, and are making significant gains in Poland as that country emerges from its oppressive past. I am most familiar with Ireland, since both my parents were born there and I visit my cousins (and myriad other relatives!) there fairly frequently. In 1983 a constitutional amendment was passed guranteeing the right to life of the unborn with due respect for the equal right to life of the mother. Women are as emancipated in that country as they are in our own. That's easy to verify. Couple that with the fact that many of the most successful American women are strongly opposed to abortion and see it as a curse for women (and society in general) rather than a blessing. I believe they are prophetically right. We are not meant to be killers of our children, and we cannot impprove society (or our individual selves) by engaging in their wholesale slaughter.

I grant you that in third world countries women do not fare well. I suggest, however, that that is not due to strictures on abortion. It is due to other factors, most notably the lack of stable government and of a free market economy.

My compliments on your fine family. I'm sure it is a great joy to you. I can't see how you conclude from your experience that women should be allowed to destroy their babies at will. Yes they (indeed all of us) should be able to decide what "happens" to our bodies. However, pregnancies don't just "happen" like some mysterious disease or unforeseen disaster. They are caused by specific acts. Acts carry responsibilities. And when human life is involved those responsibilities are most serious. Once pregnancy occurs there is a second living body involved, whom the woman and her partner have brought into existence, and for whom they are therefore responsible. That's where pregnancy differs from the case of the kidney donor who (presumably) has not assumed any prior responsiblility for the patient needing a kidney.

Well, I'm no expert, but I contacted someone who is. Dr. Johanna Schoen is a professor of women's history at University of Iowa and author of "Choice & Coercion," (2005) a history of birth control, abortion, and sterilization in the U.S. She says your claim of the 1978 study is incorrect. The legalization of abortion led to a drastic reduction of maternal mortality, abortion related deaths fell by 98%.

You are correct on abortion rates. But the fact that you only point to the three European countries in which abortion is illegal and dismiss the 3rd world as having too many other problems is disingenuous. I suspect that many women in Ireland, Malta, and Poland just cross the border to some neighbor state to get their abortions – just like women in the US drive from Mississippi to Louisiana, or wherever they can find a provider. And regardless of what you claim, illegal abortion is the no. 1 cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Here are some sobering statistics:

Of the 20 million illegal abortions performed annually, 19 million occur in 3rd world countries.

Ethiopia:
• The second leading cause of death for women of reproductive age, responsible for 55% of maternal mortality 1/5 of all hospital admissions

Kenya:
• More than 40% of Kenya’s maternal mortality rate is due to unsafe abortion
• 48.4% of the population are women aged 15-49; little access to vital health care clinics

Peru:
• Over 350,000 clandestine abortions are performed annually in Peru, resulting in one of the highest maternal mortality rates in Latin America

Uganda:
• 5,000 women annually are admitted into hospitals for incomplete abortions, with unsafe abortions causing approximately 1/3 of maternal deaths

And abortions rates do go down with easy access to contraceptive care and sex education. The Netherlands are an excellent example for this fact.

Carol Joffe’s new book "Dispatches from the Abortion Wars" has a great discussion about the extension of pro-life activism to anti-birth control positions. I really don't get the folks that are both anti-abortion and anti-birth-control. To me, that's like fighting fire with one hand while fueling it with the other. Are you really pro-life or just anti-sex? And do you really see children as punishment for bad behavior?

Finally, even if we are to consider all embryos as U.S. citizens with government-protected rights, NO ONE has the right to invade the body of another without that person's consent. Sarah believes that a woman consents to possibly bearing a child anytime she has sex. I believe that consent happens when she finds out she is pregnant and decides to keep it.

I came across this blog while researching women's access to gynecological health care under Sharia law. I feel compelled to respond.

Both males and females are experiencing younger onset of puberty than ever before, while simultaneously living in a culture saturated with sexual imagery and the message that sex feels good and is an adult thing to do, reinforced by parents who replace each other before the sheets have cooled. And you say that contraception won't help? Consistently and properly used, contraception can and will prevent most pregnancies. If a woman monitors her cycle she can avoid intercourse on the half dozen days most likely to result in conception, and if the male uses a condom each and every time he has intercourse, the incidence of unwanted pregnancy would be very low indeed, but of course that requires both parties to be aware, and responsible. This would avoid the introduction of hormones into the woman's body, which would be a good thing.

There is no way an abstinence only program is going to stop unwanted pregnancy, get real. We reward it by giving unmarried woman apartments and welfare. But those who truly wish to avoid pregnancy and are unwilling to remain chaste can still avoid pregnancy. Teach the girls to count the days in their menstrual cycle and monitor their temperature and secretions and teach both boys and girls "NO Glove, NO Love! It is an inexpensive, pragmatic solution.The only reason it would not work is the unwillingness of people to act responsibly.

A woman has the right to do what she wants, weather that be abortion or not is not for anyone else to decide. But letting the Government pay for it, or better yet letting the rest of the population pay for it is not a very responsible thing to do for the benefit of this nations people. We can't be paying for a program that provides medicare to women that may not even want it in the first place.

There are two sides to every story, and this one certainly has both right here in the comments section, but bare with us.

Everyone has their own decision and if someone really wants to pay for something like this, I think it should be up to whomever is willing; the fact that our Gov. just puts it into effect with not even a vote from the people, or anything else is ridiculous.