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

Legislating Reproductive Rights The Partial-Birth Abortion blackball feat of 2003 AbstractWhile no federal legislation currently exists limiting access to spontaneous abortions in general, in 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act became the first piece of federal legislation to regulate a crabbed abortion method. This specific procedure, known in the medical community as intact dilatation and extraction, is a procedure used to terminate late-term pregnancies and is sometimes the safest method of doing so. Since the illegalizes enactment, it has been challenged and defeated in federal judicatory three times collectable to its vague language which can be construed to encroach upon the extreme skilful to abortion. Furthermore, the ban has been found to be an unconstitutional violation of established pillowcase law pertaining to specific abortion procedures due to its vague language and lack of a health exception to entertain the cleaning womans well-being. This paper also presents research suggesting that the real role of the ban is to erode the basic constitutional right to choose and that judgments against the ban should be upheld.Introduction The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 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. cut back a specific procedure would limit safe options available to women and their doctors. Although the right to obtain 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 regarding abortion with an consummate d escription of the dilation and extraction procedure in order to licence how the Acts lack of clarity may result in its application to different procedures. As a result, it is a designed take in charge to erode the rights of women. Women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, especially when almost one-half of all unplanned pregnancies, about 1.31 million per year, are terminated by abortion (Overview). To attempt to ban a specific procedure use vague language may incidentally extend to constitutionally defend forms of abortion, consequentially impinging on our constitutional rights, disregarding pertinent case law and jeopardizing womens well-being.