Civil Liberties Debate

Debate Question: Do women have a constitutional right to an abortion?

Your Stand(Answer to Question):______

Supporting Argument / Details/Facts/Quotes / Sources

Now, be prepare for what the other side is going to argue during the debate, and prepare your response!

Other Sides Argument: What supporting arguments the other side will support their opinion? / Counterargument: How you will shoot their argument down!

ABORTION DEBATE: Do women have the constitutional right to an abortion?

Your Task: Based on the side that you are assigned, gather information from class and research additional information to argue whether women have a right to an abortion.

Grading:

-Notes Packet: 50 points

  • Background and Vocabulary
  • Research Notes
  • Debate Organizer

-Debate Performance: 50 points

-Reflection Essay: 100 points

Vocab:

-Pro-Choice

-Pro-Life

-Contraception

-Fetal Viability

-Partial Birth Abortion

Abortion Background: Basic Questions & Facts

  1. What is an abortion?
  1. How do you get an abortion?
  1. What are the laws regulating abortions---When can you get one?
  1. What did Roe v. Wade say about abortions? What was its impact?
  1. What was the significance of the Gonzales v. Carhart/Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood case ?
  1. What is the majority opinion of the people of the United States?
  1. Who are the pro-life supporters? What do they believe? What organizations support them?
  1. Who are the pro-choice supporters? What do they believe? What organizations support them?
  1. What is the personhood amendment? How does it relate to abortion?
  1. Current Laws…. What did each current law do/what’s important about it?
  2. North Dakota
  1. Oklahoma
  1. Arizona

Roe V. Wade Questions:

  1. Does the Constitution explicitly state that people have a right to privacy?

YesNo

  1. What amendments to the Constitution does the Supreme Court use to establish there is a right to privacy?
  1. Does the right to privacy cover a women’s ability to chose whether or not to have a baby?

YesNo

  1. What detriment/problems would a woman encounter if she was forced to have a child she didn’t want?
  1. Is the women’s right to an abortion absolute?

YesNo

  1. When can the state intervene/limit a woman’s right to an abortion?
  1. What does Texas want the Supreme Court to say?
  1. Does the Supreme Court say when life begins? Why or why not?

YesNo

  1. What are the two “compelling” interests the state is concerned about/needs to protect?
  1. When cans a state start regulating the abortion procedure?
  1. When can the state completely outlaw abortion, except when health of mother is at risk?
  1. Is the Texas law making abortion illegal constitutional? Why or why not?
  1. Did this Supreme Court case give clear guidelines about the constitutionality of abortion?

Roe v. Wade(1973), the ruling that made abortion legal in the United States, is one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in U.S. history. Everyone has an opinion onRoe v. Wade. But very few people know exactly what it was that the Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, actually says. Sophisticated and devastatingly cogent, it makes the pro-choice argument as well as any ruling could have in 1973. The fact that it's a Supreme Court ruling, full of footnotes and case history, makes it less accessible than, say, an op-ed column would be. So what I've done, on the following pages, is strip away all of the footnotes and most of the dry case history and provide the heart of the case.On the following pages you will see actual excerpts from theRoe v. Wademajority ruling, presented in the order in which they appeared in the ruling. Other than the deletion of text and footnotes, the occasional use of parentheses to summarize deleted text, and the use of bolded text to highlight key phrases, the selections you're about to read will be in the Court's own words. TheRoe v. Wadedecision presents a formidable argument in favor of the Supreme Court's decision in the case, and an argument that is still absolutely central to the abortion debate in our country.

Roe v. Wade(1973)

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment ... in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments ... in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights ... in the Ninth Amendment ... or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment ... These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" ... are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage ... procreation ... contraception ... family relationships ... and child rearing and education.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people,is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate.As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights ... Others have sustained state statutes ...
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

Texas urges that ... life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception.We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer ...
Physicians and their scientific colleagues ... have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.... Substantial problems for precise definition of (the view that life begins at conception) are posed by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event ...
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, thatthe State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester.This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above ... that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to outlaw abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Measured against these standards, Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

PRO/CON BACKGROUND: Do women have a right to an abortion?

The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade (342 KB) [49] declared the procedure a "fundamental right” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They argue that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.

Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, assert that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt.

Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion should only be used as a last resort, while others advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is at risk.

Some prominent pro-choice organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Organization for Women. Although many pro-life positions derive from religious ideology, several mainstream faith groups support the pro-choice movement, such as the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The 2008 Democratic Party Platform [55] endorsed the pro-choice position, stating, "[We] strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." However, approximately 35% of Democrats consider themselves pro-life. [8]

Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). [6] The 2008 Republican Party Platform [56] opposed abortion stating, "[A]t its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life." However, about 30% of Republicans are pro-choice. [7]

A May 2009 Gallup poll on abortion attitudes revealed that 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-life and 42% pro-choice. It was the first time since 1995, when the poll first started, that a majority of Americans identified as pro-life, and it was the first time since 2000 that more people were pro-life than pro-choice. [9]

Surgical abortion (aka suction curettage or vacuum curettage) is the most common type of abortion procedure. It involves using a suction device to remove the contents of a pregnant woman's uterus. The second most common abortion procedure, a medical abortion (aka an "abortion pill"), involves taking medications, usually mifepristone and misoprostol (aka RU-486), within the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy to induce an abortion. [39] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the majority (62%) of abortions performed in 2006 were performed at less than eight weeks of gestation. [40]

In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to criminalize abortion. It banned the selling of an abortion-inducing poison to women, but it did not punish the women who took the poison. Legal consequences for women began in 1845 when New York criminalized a woman's participation in her abortion. [41] By the early 1900s, influenced primarily by physicians fearing its safety, most states had banned abortion. By 1965, all 50 states had outlawed abortion, with some exceptions varying by state. [42]

Federal action on abortion didn't occur until Roe v. Wade, which declared most state anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. The high court’s 7-2 decision established rules based on a pregnancy trimester framework, banning legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy, and allowing states to regulate abortion during the second trimester (weeks 13-28) and third trimester (weeks 29-40), but only when "related to maternal health." Immediately following Roe v. Wade, pro-life proponents pushed for federal legislation that would restrict abortion. In 1976, Congress passed the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services) which included an amendment ending Medicaid funding for abortions. Known as the "Hyde Amendment," this provision banning federal funding for abortions has been renewed with various revisions every year since its inception. On June 29, 1992 the US Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (100 KB) [57] (5-4) upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion, but it abandoned the trimester framework outlined in Roe v. Wade and adopted a less restrictive standard for state regulations.

Roe v. Wade through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions were performed - an average of about 1.3 million abortions per year (1.6 million in 1990, 1.2 million in 2005). [1] [65] One out of five pregnancies end in abortion, women aged 20-29 receive 55% of all abortions, and 40% of all women have an abortion by the age of 45. [2] [3] The US abortion rate fell 29% between 1990 and 2005, from 27.4 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age, before leveling out from 2005-2008, according to a Mar. 2011 Guttmacher Institute study [65] The National Right-to-Life Committee said increased promotion of RU-486 as a "safe and simple" option was responsible for ending the decline in abortion rates. Pro-choice groups attributed it to increased economic pressures facing poor women, who chose to undergo abortions rather than face the cost of raising a child. [66]