“Necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” does not mean the same thing as medically necessary

Even though most Americans believe that “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” means the same thing as medically necessary, an abortion that is not medically necessary can be legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” because the United States Supreme Court broadly defined “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother]” in the Doe v. Bolton case, which is the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The broad definition of health in the Doe v. Bolton decision, along with the requirement that abortions after viability be legal whenever they are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” has allowed abortion on demand to be effectively legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States because abortionists can legally claim that an abortion is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother”, even when the abortion is medically unnecessary.

There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for a medical procedure to be medically necessary, and some of the abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria set forth in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions are not considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies. Here are the criteria that have to be met for a medical procedure to be medically necessary:

  1. The procedure must be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice.
  2. The procedure is performed for the purposes of preventing the death of the patient or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  3. The procedure is clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration.
  4. The procedure is effective in preventing the death of the patient or in preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  5. The procedure is not primarily performed for the convenience of the patient, the physician, or other health care provider.
  6. The procedure is less expensive than an alternative which is at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s illness, injury or disease, or as to preventing the death of the patient.

Abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria established under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions might not be considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies for several reasons. First, such an abortion might not be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice. Second, most of the abortions that fall under the so-called “health of the mother exception” are performed for purposes other than and apart from preventing the death of the mother or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother.  Third, most abortions are primarily performed for the convenience of the mother, and as such would not fall under the medical necessity criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession. Finally, an abortion might be considered to be clinically inappropriate under the criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession, even though abortion providers often consider these abortions to be clinically appropriate.

Many Americans misunderstand the difference between an abortion that is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” as defined by the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and an abortion that is medically necessary under the definition accepted by most of the medical profession and by health insurance companies. This misunderstanding has allowed abortionists to legally perform medically unnecessary abortions during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States. In addition, this misunderstanding has enabled abortionists and abortion providers to file claims for abortions that are considered to be medically necessary by the abortion provider but would not be considered to be medically necessary by the health insurance provider. Moreover, some of the women who are seeking an abortion that is deemed to be “necessary, in appropriate judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” by an abortionist might not understand why such an abortion might not be covered under an health insurance policy that covers medically necessary abortions but does not cover elective abortions. Furthermore, this misunderstanding has allowed abortion providers to receive taxpayer funding that it should not have been entitled to by claiming that the abortions are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother.” Finally, if more individuals understood the difference between “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” and medically necessary, there would be increased support for prohibiting medically unnecessary abortions after viability and there would be decreased support for taxpayer funding of abortion providers.

What is wrong with Planned Parenthood and why Planned Parenthood must be defunded

Planned Parenthood claims to be a “trusted health care provider” who “delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” but is really a pro-abortion organization whose primary purpose is to make as much money as possible from abortions. In addition, there are many other things that are wrong with Planned Parenthood, including but not limited to the sale of fetal body parts that are harvested from aborted children, the cover-up of statutory rape and the sexual abuse of minors, encouraging children to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage through its sex education programs, lobbying to get pro-abortion politicians elected and to keep abortion legal, pressuring pregnant patients into undergoing an abortion, and lying to prospective abortion patients about the facts of fetal development. As such, Planned Parenthood should lose its government funding, and individuals and corporations should stop donating to Planned Parenthood.

One of the biggest problems with Planned Parenthood is that it misrepresents itself to the government, to its donors, and its potential patients. First, Planned Parenthood claims that without birth control, women are unable to choose when they want to have children and how many children they want to have, but women are actually able to make these decisions without birth control by choosing to completely abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to have children. Second, Planned Parenthood represents abortion as a safe procedure on its website and portrays abortion as being a safe procedure in its YouTube video on in-clinic abortion, but there have been incidents of botched abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, including an abortion performed at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic that resulted in the death of Tonya Reaves back in 2012. Third, even though Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions, Planned Parenthood performs abortions on approximately 92% of its pregnant patients and Planned Parenthood’s primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Fourth, Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million dollars of taxpayer funding, but Planned Parenthood has lied to the government in order to receive taxpayer money that it should not have been able to receive in the first place. Moreover, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself as a comprehensive woman’s healthcare provider that cares about women when they are primarily in the business of performing as many abortions as possible.

Another major problem with Planned Parenthood is that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics are believed to be involved in the sale of fetal body parts from babies who are aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics. It is also believed that Planned Parenthood is violating the law by profiting from the sale of fetal body parts, by altering the manner in which the abortions from which these fetal body parts are obtained, and by performing abortions with the knowledge that fetal body parts will be harvested from these aborted babies and resold. In addition, Abby Johnson has recently admitted that the Planned Parenthood clinic that she used to work for did harvest fetal body parts from aborted babies. Furthermore, there are even indications that Planned Parenthood might possibly be willing to kill babies who are born as a result of a failed abortion in order to harvest fetal body parts. Finally, many individuals are outraged by the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts that are harvested from babies aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics.

In addition to misrepresenting itself as a comprehensive woman’s health provider and in addition to possible involvement in the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood is actively trying to increase demand for abortions in order to make additional profit, and they are taking several measures in an attempt to achieve this goal. First, Planned Parenthood is pushing comprehensive sex education to school-age children with the intentions of increasing the number of sexually active teens, increasing the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies, and increasing the demand for abortion. Second, Planned Parenthood imposes quotas on the number of abortions that each clinic must perform in order to maximize its profits. Third, Planned Parenthood promotes birth control with the knowledge that it will sometimes fail to prevent unplanned pregnancies in order to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and in order to increase demand for abortion. Additionally, pregnant women who seek medical care at Planned Parenthood clinics are usually pressured into undergoing an abortion by Planned Parenthood employees because Planned Parenthood wants to do as many abortions as they can and because they want to make as much money as they can off of abortions. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is willing to cut corners on patient safety to maximize profits, to increase the efficiency of its abortion operations, and to increase the number of abortions that it can perform. Finally, Planned Parenthood actually cares more about the money than it does about protecting the health of women and reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Individuals and corporations must stop donating to Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood by federal, state, and local governments must also be stopped for several reasons. First, Planned Parenthood is using the taxpayer funding and donations in order to increase demand for abortions. Second, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself to the government, to the general public, to its patients, and to its prospective patients in order to receive donations and taxpayer funding that it would not otherwise receive. Third, Planned Parenthood might be covering the cost of abortions by overcharging Medicaid and other health insurance companies for other medical services that are rendered to patients who had undergone an abortion at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood contributes large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates in order to ensure that they can continue to legally make money off of its abortion services, and the large sums of money paid to these campaigns come from taxpayer funds, donations, and abortion revenue. If people and companies stopped donating to Planned Parenthood and if the taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is stopped, there will be a reduction in the demand for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services and Planned Parenthood would not be contributing large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates.

The defunding of abortion providers is constitutionally permissible in the United States

The United States Supreme Court has already decided that taxpayer funding of abortion is not required under the United States Constitution in the Maher v. Roe, Williams v. Zbaraz, Harris v. McRae, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Treasury from funding abortion providers unless such funding is in accordance with appropriations made by the United States Congress.

Here are the conclusions that the United States Supreme Court arrived at with respect to taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States:

  • “The Equal Protection Clause does not require a State participating in the Medicaid program to pay the expenses incident to nontherapeutic abortions for indigent women simply because it has made a policy choice to pay expenses incident to childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Financial need alone does not identify a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “A State is not required to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor normal childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Since it is not unreasonable for a State to insist upon a prior showing of medical necessity to insure that its money is being spent only for authorized purposes, the District Court erred in invalidating the requirements of prior written request by the pregnant woman and prior authorization by the Department of Social Services for abortions” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 168, to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “Although Congress has opted to subsidize medically necessary services generally, but not certain medically necessary abortions, the fact remains that the Hyde Amendment leaves an indigent woman with at least the same range of choice in deciding whether to obtain a medically necessary abortion as she would have had if Congress had chosen to subsidize no health care costs at all” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The Hyde Amendment does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The regulations do not violate a woman’s Fifth Amendment right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion” (Rust v. Sullivan).

The United States Senate should pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015 (S. 582), because the United States Supreme Court has already decided that the taxpayer defunding of abortion being proposed under this act is constitutionally permissible as a result of the Harris v. McRae and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers should not receive taxpayer funding because these providers are primarily in the business of performing abortions, because abortion is the primary source of revenue for these providers, because the business model of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers is fundamentally different from healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions, and because the majority of abortions that are performed at Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are clearly medically unnecessary to begin with.

While prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion providers have previously been determined to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the abortion industry might attempt to get these laws declared unconstitutional through the federal courts on the grounds that these laws would lead to the closure of many abortion clinics in the United States and on the grounds that many of the abortion-seeking women would be deprived of the ability to obtain a legal abortion in the United States as a result of the prohibition of taxpayer funding of abortion. Additionally, these abortion providers might make the argument that these laws were enacted as a means to prohibit abortion in the United States, despite the fact that these laws do not prohibit physicians from performing otherwise legal abortions that were not paid for with taxpayer money. Finally, the United States Supreme Court should continue to uphold laws that prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion, even in the face of attempts to get such laws declared unconstitutional by the abortion industry, because upholding these laws would respect established legal precedent on the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion, because the government has various legitimate interests that justify prohibiting the taxpayer funding of abortion, and because the United States Treasury has an obligation under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution to not fund abortion providers unless permitted through appropriations enacted by law.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if it leads to the closure of abortion clinics in the state of Texas, because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion clinics who are compliant with the requirements of HB 2 from performing abortions prior to 20 weeks post-fertilization, abortions necessary to prevent the death or “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition” of the mother, or an abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. In addition, several of the regulations contained within HB 2 are constitutionally permissible because these provisions of HB 2 regulate abortion in a manner that is “reasonably related to maternal health” and because they do not prohibit abortion providers who are compliant with HB 2 from performing abortions.

The United States Supreme Court should decide that laws that prohibit or regulate abortion are constitutionally permissible, even though the United States previously declared state laws that prohibited abortion as being unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, because these laws further the legitimate governmental interests “in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” which had been acknowledged in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, the state has legitimate governmental interests not acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade case that justify the prohibition of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against pain that might be felt during an abortion, a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result from an attempted abortion that fails to result in the death of the unborn child, and a legitimate governmental interest in deterring infanticide.

One of the major reasons why abortion providers in Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court is that some of the pregnant women who reside in the state of Texas and who are seeking to end pregnancies through an abortion would be deprived of the opportunity to have an abortion if HB 2 is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. However, a law that regulates or prohibits abortion does not become unconstitutional simply because of opposition by the abortion industry since these laws can be constitutionally permissible if these laws are not prohibited by the United States Constitution and if proper procedure was followed by the legislature and the governor in passing these laws. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should uphold HB 2 if it determines that the provisions of HB 2 are permitted under the United States Constitution, even if there is opposition to HB 2 by Texas abortion providers.

The majority of pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through an abortion choose to do so because they do not want to take care of their unborn children after birth. Having an abortion and raising the child on her own after birth are not the only options available for a woman who is in an unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy because she also has the option to give up her unborn child for adoption if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. In addition, the denial of an abortion to a pregnant woman who is in a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy is not unreasonable if the mother is able to safely carry the pregnancy to the stage at which her unborn child is likely to be viable outside of the womb with proper medical care, if the mother is able to safely deliver her unborn child alive with proper medical care, if the mother has access to proper prenatal medical care, and if the mother is able to transfer legal custody, physical custody, and financial responsibility to another individual who can take care of her child after birth if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. Furthermore, there is always the risk that a pregnant woman will not be able to abort a pregnancy that is already at the stage at which her unborn child is viable outside of the womb, even if abortion is perfectly legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, because there is always the risk that she will go into labor prematurely.

Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies in the state of Texas would reduce the demand for abortions in the state of Texas. Additionally, improved access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas will provide real help to pregnant women who would no longer have easy access to abortion if Texas HB 2 is upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the plan to improve access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas should include improved access to pro-life prenatal medical care, unemployment assistance to pregnant women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy, improved access to material assistance to a parent of a child who is born as a result of a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, and making it easier for a woman who does not want to take care of her child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Finally, improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance would send the positive message that abortion is not the only option for those women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if some women would be denied abortions as a result of upholding HB 2, because the need and the demand for abortions in the state of Texas can be reduced by improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance and by making it easier for a pregnant women who does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Furthermore, the failure to uphold Texas HB 2 will unnecessarily endanger the lives and health of women who undergo abortions in the state of Texas. Finally, abortion providers who operate abortion clinics in the state of Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional in order to increase their profits and to avoid the expense of having to upgrade their existing abortion clinics or to relocate to new abortion clinics that meet the new standards.

The right to life of unborn children should be protected under international law

Both human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings that are separate from their mothers, and as such have a right to life under the natural moral law. What makes a human fetus or a human embryo a separate human being from his or her mother is the fact that he or she has an unique genetic makeup that is distinct from his or her mother, the fact that he or she will usually develop into a fully formed human being that is capable of survival outside of his or her mother’s body if he or she is not killed prior to birth, the fact that his or her genetic makeup is of the same kind as that of human beings who have been born, and the fact that he or she will usually develop a complete set of organs that are separate from that of his or her mother prior to birth.

The right to life of persons who have been born is currently recognized under international law and under the laws of most countries in the world and is generally recognized to be a fundamental right with respect to persons who have been born, but unborn children have been deprived of this right to life under the laws of some of the countries of the world due to the legalization of abortion in these countries. An unborn child’s right to life should be legally protected under international law and under the laws of each country because unborn children are human beings and were so from the moment of conception, because the right to life is not limited to human beings who have been born, and because the right to life is a fundamental and universal right that is derived from natural moral law. Abortion should be outlawed worldwide and international rights organizations should not force countries to keep abortion legal because abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being, because a right to abortion is in conflict with the right to life of unborn children, because the right to life of unborn children is more fundamental than a woman’s right to an abortion, and because the right to life of unborn children is a fundamental, universal right that is derived from natural moral law.

Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government has “legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 2

The United States Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that “state criminal abortion laws … that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy.” However, the United States Supreme Court had also decided in Roe v. Wade that “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” In addition, the United States Supreme Court also “conclude[d] 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,” decided that “the pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy,” and also ruled that “the woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly” in the Roe v. Wade case. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court also ruled in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, that “if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

While the United States Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that laws that prohibit abortion were unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the prohibition of abortion impermissibly violates a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, the fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy should not have been sufficient to render laws that prohibit abortion unconstitutional because a pregnant woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and also because “governmental intrusion” involving a decision to undergo an abortion is not necessarily “unwarranted” because an abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being. In addition, there are acts that are still illegal to commit in the privacy of one’s own home or in other places where there is an expectation of privacy, including but not limited to murder, assault, child abuse, identity theft, wire fraud, mail fraud, incest, rape, statutory rape, the sexual abuse of a minor, illegal sexual relations between a teacher and a student, the possession of child pornography, the production of child pornography, the illegal possession of controlled substances, and the abuse of controlled substances, and the laws prohibiting these acts are not unconstitutional on the grounds that a person has a right to privacy or on the grounds that these acts are committed in places where there is an expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even though a woman generally has a legal right to abortion and contraception in the United States, the law still imposes restrictions on a woman’s right to decide on “whether to bear or beget a child” because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with an underage boy and because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with closely related individuals such as her brother, her father, or her son.

In the Roe v. Wade ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that “for the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” However, the United States Supreme Court also effectively legalized abortion-on-demand in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, by broadly defining “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother],” and Justice William Douglas will also state in his concurring opinion of Doe v. Bolton that “the right to privacy” encompasses “the right to care for one’s health.” Furthermore, even though the United States Supreme Court required that abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” be legal during all nine months of pregnancy, the definition of health is not contained within the text of the United States Constitution, and the text of the United States Constitution does not make any kind of distinction between abortions that are not needed for the preservation of the health of the mother and abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother, at least with respect to abortions that are not essential to preventing the death of the mother. Finally, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion after viability are compelling enough to even justify prohibiting abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including governmental interests that were not acknowledged during the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

The Roe v. Wade decision should be reversed, even if some people are opposed to its reversal, for several reasons. First, the government has a compelling interest in protecting both the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother during all nine months of pregnancy, and this compelling interest has even been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the final ruling of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed because human life begins at the moment of conception, and this fact is supported by both objective scientific fact and legal precedent. Third, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn human beings, despite the fact that this right had been taken away from unborn children as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibit abortion. Fourth, the fact that a woman has a right to privacy does not necessarily imply that a pregnant woman must have a right to an abortion because a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and because a woman’s own privacy is not the only thing at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Fifth, the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney representing plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney representing plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in order to arrive at its conclusions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Sixth, many issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that necessitate revisiting these two decisions, including but not limited to the dangers of abortion procedures to the lives and to the health of the women who undergo abortions and the danger of irreversible harm to babies who have survived failed abortions. Finally, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton will allow states to enact laws that protect the right to life of unborn children, which is an unalienable right that should never have been taken away from unborn children.