Do you think Idaho's law on inducing one's own abortion is unconstitutional? Why or why not?
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Laura F's Current Event: Reproductive Rights
The Next Roe V. Wade? Jennie McCormack's Abortion Battle; Unwed, unemployed, mother of three, Jennie McCormack aborted her 18-21 week old fetus by taking RU-486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. McCormack then took the fetus and put it in box on her front porch, was later arrested that night. McCormack having no car and no computer had no way of reaching the nearly fifty mile away clinic willing to perfom the abortion. McCormack had her sister order the pill online, costing $200 and delivered it to McCormack's house. In Idaho, where this all took place, it is against the law for a woman to induce her own abortion, but it is legal for her to take the abortion pill if administrated by a doctor either through an appointement or prescription. The sentence is up to five years in prison. McCormack's case is similar to 'Roe v. Wade' in the way that the outcome of her case will change the country's view on the abortion wars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it is unconstitutional for the state of Idaho not to allow one to induce their own abortion. I think that you can only have an abortion in the US within the first 24 weeks, so if the pregnancy has lasted less than that, I think you should be able to make your own decision. I am pro-choice, and I think that it a woman's right to have an abortion. If McCormack's pregnancy was about 20 or so weeks along, I think that the abortion was within the legal limit and she should not have been arrested. One thing that should be mentioned is if it a "safe" abortion or not, as many people take the abortion pill in their homes. This should only be legal if they are in a safe and clean environment, to prevent an health risks. People need abortions for many reasons, and many, like McCormack, are living in poor conditions and do not have the means to see a doctor or have an abortion performed on them. Many may need the abortion pill and I think it is their right to use it in their homes.
ReplyDeleteI do not know if Idaho's law is unconstitutional because really there is no where in the constitution that say that a woman can have an abortion. The real broad understanding that I get from laws like these is that there needs to be some kind of federal legislature that says whether or not having an abortion is legal. Having such a law in place would keep women out of jail and would make sure that the tax payers' money is not wasted on things like this. Overall, I think that Idaho's law is not yet constitutional/unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the for the state of Idaho to for deny a woman the right to induce their own abortion is both constitutional and unconstitutional. I do agree with the principal of having an abortion for many reasons, as David stated, that some parents for example, MacCormack are incapable of taking care and supporting a child sufficiently. Women should be given an easier opportunity and availability of abortion methods to prevent themselves from performing their own abortion, so it will not be illegal. The reason to why McCormack induced her own abortion was because she was unable and did not receive the opportunity to have a proper abortion done. The law however is constitutional in the fact that for a woman to induce her own abortion when the fetus is developing can be dangerous and wrong. This situation could be avoided if MacCormack along with other women were given the opportunity no matter what financial status, the opportunity to seek a proper abortion from a consulted physician. Concluding this argument, I agree with David that this law is for the most part unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI think Idaho's law is unconstitutional because in the Roe V. Wade case it says that a woman has the right to abort her pregnancy within the first trimester. Idaho's law is directly undoing that ruling by saying a woman can't induce their own abortion. All sates must abide by the national constitution and the amendments. States are allowed to add more individually, but must also respect the laws in the national constitution. This law takes away the rights in the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David and Kayla in saying that this law is unconstitutional. This law is denying women of their rights to their own body. Having an abortion is in the best interest of the mother and the child, and in this case, the child would not have been able to survive with the mother. Although inducing one's own abortion can be very dangerous, some people simply don't have the money or insurance to have an abortion performed by a doctor. In most cases, women get abortions because they can't afford to have the child, so what makes lawmakers think women can afford the abortion? Like David said, the abortion was under 24 weeks, so the woman should be able to make her own decision if the abortion is the best thing to do for her and the baby.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is not unconstitutional because if we just let anyone just abort their unborn children then we would significantly reduce our population size. Furthermore if we do this than people can make a great argument for self suicide. They could do this because it , just like the abortion pill is the right to kill. Plus, when you do this, since it was after 12 months she actually killed a person and no where in our constitution does it legalize the killing of innocent babies.
ReplyDeleteI don't see Idaho's law as unconstitutional but I do see it as contradictory. If a woman can take the abortion pill if a doctor prescribes it to her, she should be able to buy it herself as well, legally. It's not unconstitutional because a woman can still have an abortion, and it's not changing her rights. It's only changing the terms in which she can consume the pill. Which is kind of smart because I think it's best to go to the doctor once you are pregnant, actually it's basically required. Therefore, if a woman finds out she's pregnant from a doctor, she can have the abortion pill prescribed to her when she finds out about her pregnancy. It doesn't affect a woman's right to abortion, so the law is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure if Idaho's law is constitutional because there is kid of a gray area with abortion. the gray area is whether or not you think that live starts at conception or birth. if you believe that life starts at conception, than yes it is because you are killing the fetus that is living inside you. if you don't think that and you think that life starts at birth, then no it's not constitutional. so this law can really go either way.
ReplyDeleteI find this law to be unconstitutional. A women should have the right to receive and abortion anyway that she would like to get one. The state of Idaho does not have to carry her child, she does. And if she doesn't want to carry that baby she shouldn't have too. She has to support that baby and if she doesn't want to go threw with the pregnancy she shouldn't have to. An abortion is the women's choice, and only her choice. I don't feel like it was the right choice to leave the fetus on a box on the front porch, but I do feel like she should not be have been arrested for her taking the pill. She did what was best for her family, she did not kill a human being, she killed a baby that was completely dependent on her body, so if she didn't want to have the child no one should have to make her.
ReplyDelete