Nuthall 1

Skylar Nuthall

Professor Fielding

WRTC 103 0045

3 October 2017

Final Draft

Are abortion restrictions violating womens rights or are they protecting women and their

unborn children? Is abortion considered murder? Do fetuses have equal rights to life as all

human beings do? All of these highly controversial questions are addressed throughout the

opposing viewpoint article, State Abortion Laws: Do state abortion laws protect the health of

women and unborn children, or do they violate womens rights?, published on October 3, 2014

by InfoBase Learning. In the article, Pro-lifes versus Pro-choices beliefs and perceptions on

abortion are argued effectively through the use of ethos, logos, and pathos to strengthen their

viewpoints.

In the article, State Abortion Laws: Do state abortion laws protect the health of women

and unborn children, or do they violate womens rights? (2014) reports that Pro-life (anti-

abortion) and Pro-choice (pro-abortion), both have effective and sufficient arguments that support

their beliefs on abortion laws and rights. The article is scholarly and organized in a topical order

which makes the content easy to read and understand what is being argued. Pro-life believes that

a fetus has rights equivalent to all human beings, therefore abortion is considered murder and

should be illegal. Pro-choice has an opposing perspective of if abortion is illegal it is violating

the womens privacy rights making it unconstitutional. Abortion has been a controversial topic for

decades and will continue to be due to the strong opposing viewpoints of anti-abortionists and pro-

abortionists.
 Nuthall 2

Although there is no credited author, evidence of ethos is present in the article through the

inclusion of statements from several presidents of organizations, for and against abortion, that

possess high credibility. Carol Tobias, the president of a Pro-life organization called the National

Right to Life wrote that in the years since the Supreme Court decision, the right-to-life movement

has worked, to the extent possible allowed by the courts, to enact laws that protect unborn children

and offer support and life-affirming alternatives to their mothers. the conscience of our nation

knows that killing unborn children is wrong. (2). In 2014, North Dakota passed a law restricting

access to abortion. The president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northup, that same

year states women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to

protect their constitutional rights (5). Northup, being on the Pro-choice side of the controversy

believes that the law the state has passed is unconstitutional and only further violates womens

rights. Cecile Richards, president of the organization Planned Parenthood, previously known as

the American Birth Control League, has a similar opinion to that of Nancy Northrup after North

Carolina also attempted to enforce laws restricting abortion. Having the law over turned was a

major victory for North Carolina women and sends a message to lawmakers across the country: it

is unconstitutional for politicians to interfere in a womans personal medical decisions (30).

Statements from presidents of various abortion organizations allow the audience to perceive the

information as credible.

Logos within State Abortion Laws: Do state abortion laws protect the health of women

and unborn children, or do they violate womens rights? includes numerous important Supreme

Court cases that support arguments for Pro-lifes and Pro-choices viewpoints. The Supreme Court

in 1983, ruled 63 in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that various

provisions of an Ohio law limiting women's access to abortion were unconstitutional because they
 Nuthall 3

were intended to reduce the number of abortions, rather than protect women's health. (17). Pro-

choice claims limiting access to abortion is unconstitutional, but also their intentions were for the

wrong reasons. The restrictions are for the states best interest, not for the women or their children.

The Supreme Court case Harris versus McRae rules that states participating in Medicaida

federal health care program for low-income Americanswere not required to provide funding for

abortions, even if the procedure was medically necessary, because, the right of a woman to

obtain an abortion did not include a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail

herself of the full range of protected choices. (16). Therefore, a woman relying on Medicaid can

still have an abortion, but her abortion will not be funded by that state or government, even if it is

necessary for her or her babys health. For the best interest of women and unborn children

everywhere, the Court divided pregnancy into three stages (trimesters) and determined that

regulations on abortion should be linked to trimester. The Court ruled that the state could not

intervene during the first trimester (012 weeks), could intervene during the second trimester (12

24 weeks) only to protect the health of the mother, and could regulate the procedure freely during

the third trimester (beyond 24 weeks), as long as an exception existed to preserve maternal life and

health (14). By separating a womans pregnancy into the three trimesters, it sets guidelines to

when abortion is regulated by the state, and under what conditions it could be restricted. Logic in

each of the court cases give the audience the opportunity to interpret the facts and evidence from

both opposing sides of the controversy.

Pathos is not as heavy as ethos and logos in the article, but the emotions that it draws from

the audience is powerful enough to maintain harmony among the three appeals. In Nebraska, they

passed a law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the notion that fetuses

at that stage can feel painan assertion many dispute. (22). By explaining that after twenty
 Nuthall 4

weeks a baby can feel pain, it allows the readers to perceive abortion as immoral because it can

hurt the baby. Congress in the 1990s passed several laws banning intact dilation and extraction

(IDX), a medical procedure also known as partial-birth abortion, in which a fetus can be removed

intact (19). IDX is roughly used in about one percent of abortions in the United States, and it has

become a symbol for Pro-life because it illustrates the graphic destruction of an unborn child

(19). In Virginia during early 2012 the state was considering a bill that would require women to

undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound that would show them an image of the fetus prior to

receiving an abortion (23). In several other states, a mandatory ultrasound has been enforced, but

due to Pro-choice advocates Virginia opted to mandate for non-invasive ultrasounds of their

abdomen. The bill was passed by legislature in March that year. By explaining that a fetus can

feel pain after twenty weeks into a pregnancy, bringing up IDX, and attempting to enforce the

women to undergo an ultrasound before they decide to abort, allows the audience to feel guilty for

believing abortion.

Abortion is significant in todays society because it is something that is still highly

controversial, and will continue to be fought over. It is such a large and well known controversy

in society due to peoples opposing beliefs on fetal rights and womens rights, and whether or not

abortion violates or protects these rights. Abortion adds to the conversation of gender because of

the vigorous concern that people have about whether or not restricting abortion violates womens

privacy rights, or protects womens health.

 Nuthall 5

Work Cited

"State Abortion Laws: Do State Abortion Laws Protect the Health of Women and Unborn

Children, or do they Violate Women's Rights?" Issues & Controversies, 3 Oct. 2014,

http://icof.infobaselearning.com/articles/religion,-ethics,-and-morality/state-abortion-

laws.aspx?sr=1&tab=1&hd=14678.