Legislating Reproductive Rights: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 :: Politics Political Research Papers

Legislating Reproductive Rights The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban mould of 2003 AbstractWhile no federal legislation currently exists check access to stillbirths in general, in 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban motion became the original piece of federal legislation to regulate a particular stillbirth manner. This particular proposition procedure, known in the medical community as inherent dilation and line, is a procedure used to terminate late-term pregnancies and is sometimes the safest method of doing so. Since the illegalises enactment, it has been ch every(prenominal)enged and defeated in federal court common chord times due to its shadowed language which empennage be construed to advance upon the fundamental right to abortion. Furthermore, the ban has been found to be an unconstitutional violation of established case police force pertaining to specific abortion procedures due to its fainthearted language and lack of a health exception to protect the womans well-being. This paper also presents research suggesting that the real intent of the ban is to chafe the basic constitutional right to choose and that judgments against the ban should be upheld.Introduction The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban act as of 2003 claims to limit a specific abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), which is sometimes the safest method for aborting late-term pregnancies. Many factors contribute to the need for late-term abortions and the consequences of denying abortion can be detrimental to a womans well-being. Restricting a specific procedure would limit safe options available to women and their doctors. Although the right to defend an early abortion has been established as a fundamental liberty, this Act uses vague language that could extend to other forms of abortion performed earlier in a pregnancy and fails to include an exception to preserve the womans health. This paper will integrate previous decisions regardi ng abortion with an accurate verbal description of the dilation and extraction procedure in order to demonstrate how the Acts lack of clarity may result in its drill to different procedures. As a result, it is a designed attempt to erode the rights of women. Women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, especially when almost half of all unplanned pregnancies, about 1.31 million per year, are terminated by abortion (Overview). To attempt to ban a specific procedure using vague language may incidentally extend to constitutionally protected forms of abortion, consequentially impinging on our constitutional rights, disregarding pertinent case law and jeopardizing womens well-being.