State Abortion Statute

State Abortion Statute

Question One

As noted by Harris, (2013), the state made decisions to protect the life of a potential being from being done away with through abortion. However, there is one exception that can be considered when executing this, and it is only if the life of the mother is in danger. Some medical examinations may state that if the fetus is not aborted, the mother will die, and in this case, the life of the mother is given first priority. Another argument is developed in the case where the mother had gone through a case of rape or incest. With this, one is given a considerable amount of time to conduct an abortion procedure before the fetus begins to be considered as a viable one. On the other hand, the mother may make a decision to wait until the baby becomes viable, and in such a case, the state has the mandate to protect the potential life at all costs. The Reproductive Rights Association (RRA) has a more likelihood of losing if these claims are anything to go by. This is because if the fetus becomes viable, that is developed to a certain extent, where it begins to look like a human, the state has the mandate to protect it and prevent abortion.

Question Two

Another argument would be based on the prohibition of all abortions that are sought for the purpose of sex selection, which is regarded as unconstitutional and prohibits abortion before the fetus reaches the point of viability. The Reproductive Rights Association (RRA) is likely to win this claim because the law gives a woman the right to decide whether she wants to abort or wait up until the fetus is considered to be viable (Harris, 2013). The state cannot interfere with the woman’s decision to abort before the baby becomes viable. This is only possible if the decision to abort is made on the basis of sex selection, and that is the only time when the state cannot interfere with the decision making the process. The united states constitution has a clause on the women’s right to privacy whereby they are given the freedom to make their decision, and this is contained in the human rights constitution. The RRA is likely to win if they put their facts and claims right and base them on what the American constitution states in regard to the women’s rights to privacy and decision making concerning the topic of abortion.

Question Three

The other argument is based on the 48 hours waiting period that is provided, which is considered as an obstacle and burden to the abortion before viability is reached. The Reproductive Rights Association (RRA) is likely to win on this claim, and the intended outcome is to have the waiting hours reduced to a more reasonable time. One of the previous cases that are discussed in this chapter is that of the state of Pennsylvania, which upheld the requirement of a 24-hours waiting period before an abortion procedure is obtained (Harris, 2013). One of the reasons that it gave following this verdict is that it did not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right to be involved in an abortion procedure. Basing on this argument and claim, the best course of action would be the reduction of the waiting period to a less and considerable time. One of the benefits of this reduction of time is that the woman would only be in distress for a short period of time as compared to when the amount of time is in a 48-hours waiting. Additionally, the pain experienced by the woman would be less and would not put the life of the woman in question at risk.

Question Four

The other argument is that of the undue burden and barriers that are brought about by the prior requirement for written consent by a parent or guardian of a minor. Another burden that is presented is that of prior written consent by the court to ascertain that the fetus had not reached the point of viability before the abortion procedure took place. The chapter gives a discussion of a case that was presented by the state of Pennsylvania, which stated that there must be a written parent or guardian consent before an abortion procedure is done to a woman. However, it is worth noting that this is only required for a minor who is below the age of 18 and cannot make their own decision. In the situation that this is not possible, the court is also allowed to provide approval for the abortion procedure to be done on a minor who is under the age of 18 years (Harris, 2013). Basing on this argument and previous cases that have been arbitrated on the same, the Reproductive Rights Association (RRA) is likely to lose their claim concerning the process that should be followed during the obtaining the approval for an abortion process to a minor.

Question Five

Another argument that the Reproductive Rights Association (RRA) brings to the table is that of the usage of state funds to conduct a campaign to discourage abortion in the entire country. They term this as unconstitutional because they use the taxpayer’s money to force a campaign to people who might not even be interested or even do not agree with the said pledges. Many individuals around the world refer to abortion as a very wrong thing where most of the term is as offensive, and that goes against the moral principles. Therefore it means that the government has no obligation to interfere with our moral codes, and it is our own priority to define and set our own moral codes that we should follow. The government also cannot force its citizens to believe in the same thing to the extent that it uses the taxpayer’s money to conduct a campaign against abortion. The best cause of action on this is that it should be a willing decision for a person to make so long as they are following the law and not the government to force it on people. The RRA is most likely to win this claim if, at all, they decide to put their arguments and facts right.

Question Six

The last argument is on the ethical principles that are associated with this case, which range from justice, beneficence, and non-malfeasance. To begin with, the principle of beneficence improves quality of life and reduces the probability of diseases immobility sores or even death in the case of abortion and hence, the health of the mother should be put first in regard to beneficence. On the other hand, the principle of justice recommends that the law must be allowed as it is stated in the American constitution, in regard to women’s rights and privacy. Justice also comes in when the court is given its obligation to give the go-ahead of an abortion procedure, especially when it involves a minor child. The principle of non-malfeasance states that everyone has an obligation of always not inflicting pain or harm on others. This, therefore, means that one should consider not causing harm or pain to the woman who is having the abortion procedure conducted on where they should be given first priority.