Sample Scholarship Essays


Abortion Leslie Booher College Writing I 10/29/99 Abortion Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. Most people know what abortion is thats the simple part, what gets more complicated is the moral issue surrounding it. There are some people who believe that abortion is a personal issue that should be decided by the mother and that if she decides to abort the baby that is ok. The other side of the issue is for the people like myself who feel that abortion is wrong in any situation. Is abortion killing? Yes abortion is killing a pre born child just because it is called removal doesnt mean that it is not killing. Yes the ultimate intention is removal, but it is carried out by a method that is in fact killing, such as dismembering or poisoning.

Some people say We just want to remove the child, not kill him or her, though she may die as a result. Now this is hardly a reality considering some of the methods that are used in aborting the child. The first method is D & C or Dilation and Curettage. This is performed between seven and twelve. This method utilizes a sharp curved knife.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The uterus is approached though the vagina. The mouth of the womb is stretched open, and the surgeon then cut the body into tiny pieces and cuts and scrapes the placenta away from the walls of the uterus. Then one of the operating nurses has to reassemble the parts to be sure the uterus is entirely empty. Otherwise, the mother will become infected. Another method is Suction or Vacuum Aspiration used between seven and twelve weeks. A powerful suction tube is inserted into the womb. The baby is violently torn to pieces and sucked into a jar. Of course if you dont like the idea of having the baby torn to shreds there is always the Saline or Salt Poisoning method.

This is generally used after the thirteenth week. A long needle is inserted through the mothers abdomen and a strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid that surrounds the child. The salt is swallowed and breathed and slowly poisons the baby, burning the skin as well. It usually takes about an hour to slowly kill the baby. Usually the mother goes into labor about a day later and expels a dead, grotesque, shriveled baby.

Oh course according to the pro-abortionists the fetus cannot feel when this happens so they are in absolutely no pain. This probably explains why the following happens; during the saline solution process, about an hour after the fluid is injected when the saline begins to affect the pre born the baby begins to react to it with the basic tools for survival used by every living creature – fight to survive. The baby begins to kick and thrust. Soon he or she can no longer fight the poison or run from it, the convulsions begin. This can be very uncomfortable for the mother. But dont forget what those pro-abortionists say the baby has no feeling.

They must be right. Many people will defend to the end a womans right to choose. They call themselves Pro-Choice, thus conveniently avoiding any part in killing the child. If you claim to be pro-choice then you are saying it is ok to kill an innocent baby if that is what the mother wants to do. Well guess what that is pro-abortion, you are saying it is ok.

There is no such thing as pro-choice. You have to take a stand one way or another. Pro-choice is a safety ground you dont ever have to live up to what you truly believe in. Some people believe that abortion is ok. Especially in the case of rape induced pregnancy.

Abortion is murder. Murder is NEVER justified, even to relieve a great pain, and even if there was a prior injustice, such as the child being forced on the woman against her will. Sometimes it is said that pregnancy due to rape is very rare, rare or not it is a topic that must be addressed because of the role it plays in the way that people think. So many people oppose abortion except in this case. Their position is extremely flawed. There are many reasons that people use to justify their opinion.

First, The woman was given no choice. Had she freely engaged in the sexual act, she should then bear the responsibility of the pregnancy. But since it was forced in her, she should not be forced to continue the resulting pregnancy. In response to that, if you are injustly denied a choice, does that give you the right to kill an innocent person? True, it not fair for a woman to have to endure a forced pregnancy. We have to have the greatest compassion and sympathy for her.

We must support and encourage her, not destroy an innocent child. Yes, it certainly was wrong for the woman to be raped. But she is not justified in righting this wrong by removing the result of it. Two wrongs do not equal a right. The child is a constant reminder of the terrible crime, the woman should be allowed to get rid of this reminder. Yes, this child is a reminder of a horrible violent act: rape.

This by no means allows her to destroy this child with another violent act: abortion. The child is absolutely innocent, in no way responsible for his or her coming into existence at this time and under these circumstances. The rapist is the only unjust attacker. When the future generations look back at us, what will they see? They will see a society that prided itself on being humane and concerned for human rights, but one that also engaged in the practice of killing small children by dismembering or burning. It did not do this to all children, just certain ones, who were still in the first phases of their lives, unable to defend themselves.

It was a practice called abortion. One would think that such a violent act would be outlawed. It was not; it was perfectly legal. Many in society welcomed the fact that it was legal, for they wanted to keep the practice safe. Didnt they find it odd to refer to a practice that destroys little children as safe? Is that the message we really want to portray to the future generations? Abortion is wrong and it must be stopped! Ethics and Morals.


In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?
The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud for it’s own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science – Make no Mistake – that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created.
Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl.

No, a fetus is not just another part of a women’s body like an appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The fetus is distinct and different and has it’s own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus’ heart started beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a man’s hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being.

Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the members of the Women’s Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change.

If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mother means more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life.

I agree that the fetus has not developed it’s full potential as a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, it’s helpless intra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death.

As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of the World Health Organization said, Serious mental disorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried through to term.

Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary, emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L. Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney’s Office, I believe it can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt, depression and mental illness than it ever cures.

We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real is that risk – it is not – in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused. It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14 maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from suicide directly following the abortion.

Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher, one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: Almost any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life much less save it.

Sociology Essays


Abortion Abortion The founding of our nation was forged on the principle that all men are created equal. This is the essence of our Declaration of Independence and the philosophy behind the Constitution. We, through history, have made certain that all people in this country have equality before the law. We have set up the premise that all people are equal before the law. We have declared that there is no such thing as sub-humans — and that no human being’s rights are superior to another human being. If we want to live by the premises that we set up in this country, than we cannot overlook any human being, no one can be excluded.

There is, however, a class of human beings that is being denied the right to life: the unborn baby. The human species is only fully grown at adulthood. Many of us here are not adults yet, and by that definition, it wouldn’t matter if youre shot and killed on the street because youre not fully developed. We are in a stage of development — teenager — just like a child is, just like a toddler is, just like an old man is, and just like an aborted child is. There is no magical transformation that occurs when a child is born.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

He has the same basic needs to survive before he is born, and the same needs after he is born. Anyone who tries to tell anyone else that the baby in the mothers womb is not a human or doesnt matter is a downright liar. They want you to believe that an unborn child cannot feel pain. If you accept that an unborn baby is not an eating, breathing, moving, human inside of a woman then their life can have no value. Can an unborn child feel pain? Of course it does, it is a human being, and as a human being it has five senses.

How would you like to be in your mothers womb and all of a sudden be stabbed in the back of the head with scissors and your brains sucked out? In a suction abortion, sometimes the baby will struggle to get a way, but theyre no match for the vacuum. The abortionists will tell you that your baby is just a piece of tissue, which makes it easier to have an abortion, they will also tell you that it will just be a burden on your life and youre making the right decision by committing murder and taking away that babies constitutional rights. If you accept that an unborn baby is not a eating, breathing, moving, human inside of a woman then their life can have no value. Now lets talk about the moral issues. If youre going to go out and have sex, you need to take the consequences and have the baby.

Even if you dont want it you can put it up for adoption, you dont have to take the easy way out and slaughter it. Our country went through and the world went through a long period of time where Whites believed that Blacks were actually sub-human! If someone accepted that a Black person was a sub- human, then it became easy to continue slavery, and it became easy to abuse or ignore his or her rights to life. We have disproved this premise in modern time, not ignoring the facts. We cannot hide it! Killing a living human being is murder and murder is against the law and murder against God. Would want to have been an aborted child.

Would you have wanted your life to be cut, before you could even be born into this world? When I was inside my mother, No one could ask me if I valued my life. I wouldn’t have a right to live. If you were aborted you would not have a chance to ask for your life. If abortion is murder, then can we let this continue? There are approximately one million abortions every year in the United States. Bibliography Work Cited Carton, Jean. Who Broke The Baby? Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1997 Alcorn, Randy. Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments.

Portland Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1994 Crutcher, Mark. Lime 5. Denton, Texas: Life Dynamics, 1996.


Almost half of American women have terminated at least one pregnancy, and millions more Americans of both sexes have helped them, as partners, parents, health-care workers, counselors, friends. Collectively, it would seem, Americans have quite a bit of knowledge and experience of abortion. Yet the debate over legal abortion is curiously abstract: we might be discussing brain transplants.
Farfetched analogies abound: abortion is like the Holocaust, or slavery; denial of abortion is like forcing a person to spend nine months intravenously hooked up to a medically endangered stranger who happens to be a famous violinist. It sometimes seems that the further abortion is removed from the actual lives and circumstances of real girls and women, the more interesting it becomes to talk about.

Opponents often argue as if the widespread use of abortion were a modern innovation, the consequence of some aspect of contemporary life of which they disapprove (feminism, promiscuity, consumerism, Godlessness, permissiveness, individualism), and as if making it illegal would make it go away. What if none of this is true?
Historical advertisements: The Granger Collection, New York.
When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan demonstrates that abortion has been a common procedure — part of life — in America since the eighteenth century, both during the slightly more than half of our history as a nation when it has been legal and during the slightly less than half when it was not.
The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business — including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press — was booming.
In one of the many curious twists that mark the history of abortion, the campaign to criminalize it was waged by the same professional group that, a century later, would play an important role in legalization: physicians. The American Medical Association’s crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of regular physicians over midwives and homeopaths.
The physician and anti-abortion leader Horatio R. Storer asked in 1868. This is a question our women must answer; upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation. (It should be mentioned that the nineteenth-century women’s movement also opposed abortion, having pinned its hopes on voluntary motherhood — the right of wives to control the frequency and timing of sex with their husbands.)
Nonetheless, having achieved their legal goal, many doctors — including prominent members of the AMA — went right on providing abortions.
women were often able to make doctors listen to their needs and even lower their fees. And because, in the era before the widespread use of hospitals, women chose the doctors who would attend their whole families through many lucrative illnesses, medical men had self-interest as well as compassion for a motive.
Thus in an 1888 expos undercover reporters for the Chicago Times obtained an abortion referral from no less a personage than the head of the Chicago Medical Society.
Unless a woman died, doctors were rarely arrested and even more rarely convicted. Even midwives — whom doctors continued to try to drive out of business by portraying them, unfairly, as dangerous abortion quacks — practiced largely unmolested.
What was the point, then, of making abortion a crime? Reagan argues that its main effect was to expose and humiliate women caught in raids on abortion clinics or brought to the hospital with abortion complications, and thereby send a message to all women about the possible consequences of flouting official gender norms.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Publicity — the forced disclosure of sexual secrets before the authorities — was itself the punishment. Reagan’s discussion of dying declarations makes particularly chilling reading: because the words of the dying are legally admissible in court, women on their deathbeds were informed by police or doctors of their imminent demise and harassed until they admitted to their abortions and named the people connected with them — including, if the woman was unwed, the man responsible for the pregnancy
Unsurprisingly, the Depression, during which women stood to lose their jobs if they married or had a child, saw a big surge in the abortion rate.
Well-connected white women with private health insurance were sometimes able to obtain therapeutic abortions, a never-defined category that remained legal throughout the epoch of illegal abortion.
Even for the privileged, though, access to safe abortion narrowed throughout the fifties, as doctors, fearful of being prosecuted in a repressive political climate for interpreting therapeutic abortion too broadly, set up hospital committees to rule on abortion requests. Some committees were more compassionate than others.

Moderate reforms had already been tried: twelve states permitted abortion in instances of rape, incest, danger to physical or mental health, or fetal defect, but since most women, as always, sought abortions for economic, social, or personal reasons, illegal abortion continued to thrive
Legalizing abortion was a public-health triumph that for pregnant women ranked with the advent of antisepsis and antibiotics.
Anti-abortion zealots have committed arson, assault, and murder in their campaign against abortion clinics.
Similarly, the general lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting those who perform abortions and the almost total failure to prosecute and jail women for having them suggest that whatever Americans may consider abortion to be, it isn’t baby killing, a crime our courts have always punished quite severely.

it seems absurd to suggest that the overburdened mothers, desperate young girls, and precariously employed working women who populate these pages risked public humiliation, injury, and death for mere convenience, much less out of secular humanism or a Lockean notion of property rights in their bodies. It’s even more preposterous — not to mention insulting — to see them as standing in relation to their fetuses as a slaveowner to a slave or a Nazi to a Jew.

Reagan suggests that the abortion debate is really an ideological struggle over the position of women. How much right should they have to consult their own needs, interests, and well-being with respect to childbearing or anything else?
Abortion as philosophical puzzle and moral conundrum is all very well, but what about abortion as a real-life social practice?
Since the abortion debate is, theoretically at least, aimed at shaping social policy, isn’t it important to look at abortion empirically and historically?
Historical advertisements: The Granger Collection, New York.

Copyright 1997 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved.

The Atlantic Monthly; May 1997; Abortion in American History; Volume 279, No. 5; pages 111-115.
May 11th, 2000
A fetus is not a person and not the subject of an indictment for manslaughter, Boston’s Superior Court Judge James P. McGuire told the jury.

I will continue to do abortions. They are a woman’s right, he said after his conviction, Women since they’ve been on this earth have been making that choice, whether they want to carry that baby or not….The only humane thing we can do is make sure that when they make that choice they have the opportunity to make it under the best conditions possible.

Copyright 1975 by Seth Mydans. All rights reserved.
May 11th, 2000
At the same time, there begins to appear on the part of some an alarming readiness to subordinate rights of freedom of choice in the area of human reproduction to governmental coercion.

Notwithstanding all this, we continue to maintain strict antiabortion laws on the books of at least four fifths of our states, denying freedom of choice to women and physicians and compelling the unwilling to bear the unwanted.
Since, however, abortions are still so difficult to obtain, we force the birth of millions more unwanted children every year.
to cut down on population growth we should make abortion easy and safe while we continue to develop other and more satisfactory methods of family limitation.

There is no perfect contraceptive. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reports that the intrauterine devices, one of the most effective contraceptives available today, have a failure rate of 1.5 to 3%. This means that if all married women in the United States could and did use these contraceptives, there would still be about 350,000 to 700,000 unwanted pregnancies a year among married women alone. Even sterilization is not a 100% effective method of contraception; some operations fail. Therefore, in order to insure a complete and thorough birth control program, abortion must be made available as a legal right to all women who request it.

The situation is today reversed; abortion under modern hospital conditions is safer than childbirth.
Though the population experts have not yet aligned themselves on the side of abortion-law reform, something is beginning to happen. Seven states–Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina–have amended their laws to permit abortion not only to save life but also to protect the health, mental and physical, of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and to avert the birth of defective offspring
The 8000 to 10,000 in-hospital abortions contrast, of course, with the estimated one million performed outside hospitals annually. Probably not much more than one half of these are performed by doctors; the rest by the kindly neighbor, the close friend, or the woman herself. Generally speaking, the laws do not distinguish in their prohibitions of abortions between doctors and nondoctors. Moreover, the out-of-hospital abortions performed by doctors are obtained by the same group which accounts for the bulk of the in-hospital abortions: the middle- and upper-income white woman who can afford the hundreds or thousands charged for expert medical service outside the law. And these are the same women who can afford to go to Japan, Sweden, England, or one of the Iron Curtain countries where abortions are legal and where they typically cost something between $10 and $25.

But most of the old laws on abortion remain unchanged on the statute books. In a few states, like Connecticut or Missouri, the law says that the abortion may be performed to save the life of the child as well as that of the mother, although no one is sure what this means. As a matter of fact, no one knows what the laws which permit abortion to save the life of the mother mean.
In order that a physician may best serve his patients he is expected to exalt the standards of his profession and to extend its sphere of usefulness.

Copyright 1969 by Harriet Pilpel. All rights reserved.
Published FridayMarch 31, 2000
White House Seeks to Join Carhart Case
Washington (AP) – The Clinton administration is asking the Supreme Court to let it join a Nebraska doctor’s fight against a state abortion law.

Justice Department lawyers asked the nation’s highest court this week to let them participate when the Nebraska case is argued before the justices the week of April 24. They said the law violates some women’s constitutional right to end their pregnancies.

The court’s decision in the case may determine the fate of 30 states’ bans on the late-term procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion and which is known medically as intact dilation and extraction.

President Clinton twice has vetoed a federal ban enacted by Congress.

The court has not yet said whether it will let the administration participate in the argument, but in a friend-of-the-court brief made public Thursday government lawyers called the Nebraska law unconstitutional for three reasons.

The brief says the law challenged by Bellevue doctor LeRoy Carhart is written so broadly that it could be enforced against more than one abortion procedure and is too vague to let doctors know just what abortion techniques are outlawed.

Even if the law is limited to a single procedure, the brief says, it unduly burdens a woman’s right to abortion because it fails to provide an exception to preserve the pregnant woman’s health. The only exception to Nebraska’s ban is if the outlawed procedure is necessary to save a woman’s life.

The statute therefore prohibits the . . . method even when a physician concludes that that method is best suited to preserve the health of a particular woman, the brief says. The ban therefore forces at least some pregnant women to forgo a safer abortion method for one that would compromise their health.

The surgical procedure involves partly extracting a fetus, legs first, then cutting the skull and draining it to allow full removal from the uterus.

Abortion-rights advocates say the court’s decision could broadly safeguard or dramatically erode abortion rights, depending on what state legislatures can consider when regulating abortions.

A federal appeals court struck down the Nebraska law along with Iowa and Arkansas laws. But nearly identical laws in Illinois and Wisconsin were up-held by another federal appeals court.

Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Jan. 22, 1998, marked the 25th anniversary of the landmark decision Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling, of course, gave women the legal right to have an abortion.
Poll results: 8,885 people voted 1. Should abortion be legal? 77% yes22% no 1% don’t know 2. Will Roe v. Wade be overturned in your lifetime? 13% yes 69% no 18% don’t know 3. Have you or has anyone you know had an abortion? 86% yes 10% no 4% don’t know
Poll date: Jan. 18, 1998
Copyright 1995-2000 Networks. All rights reserved.
Abortion Coverage Leaves Women out of the Picture
By Tiffany Devitt
For example, the Supreme Court decision that enabled states to require women under the age of 18 to get parental consent before getting an abortion was widely covered. However, while more than 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and thousands of them are affected by state legislation requiring parental consent, reporters almost never sought their reaction, covering the legal change without consulting anyone in the group that it impacts.
This graphic depicts the abortion debate as two hands tugging at a rag doll– suggesting that the debate is about an unborn child rather than about women’s rights


I'm Abigail

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out