DOCSLIB.ORG

Pills on Their Own to End a Pregnancy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Abortion pills in U.S. women's hands: Bold action to meet women's needs Report on meeting held 12/4/13 in Washington, DC I. Background In many places around the world where access to abortion is restricted or prohibited, a woman can go to a pharmacy or drug outlet to obtain misoprostol (also known as Cytotec) to successfully end an unwanted pregnancy without talking to or seeing a healthcare provider. The drug distribution system in the United States is different than in many countries where this happens, and there is no direct parallel here to that experience. Still, some US women are using misoprostol (or mifepristone and misoprostol together) to end a pregnancy without formal medical guidance. Moreover, given the increased restrictions on abortion services that we are seeing in so many parts of the country, this practice is likely to increase. This raises complex legal, medical/clinical and political questions – some of which may not yet have clear answers. There is, however, a solid body of medical evidence and experience from across the globe that can inform the discussion. Convinced that it is time to share with women in the US the knowledge that global research and experience has produced regarding the self-use of pills to safely end an unwanted pregnancy, Francine Coeytaux (Public Health Institute), Leila Hessini (Ipas), Amy Allina (National Women's Health Network), and Kate Ryan (National Women's Health Network) organized a meeting to: 1) share what is known; 2) identify questions that need to be answered; 3) discover opportunities for advocates for women's health to work together; and 4) develop some actionable strategies to improve US women’s access to accurate information on abortion pills and reliable sources for the drug(s). The meeting was held on December 4, 2013 in Washington, DC in the offices of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. It brought together 29 advocates, researchers and community- based activists from 11 different states1 for a strategic conversation about how to ensure that women in the US have the information, resources, and support they need to use abortion pills safely. The funding for this one-day meeting was provided by an anonymous donor and the Mary Wolford Foundation through the Public Health Institute. II. Sharing Information on What Has Been Done to Date Historical background: The first part of the day was dedicated to sharing information about what has been done to date on the self-use of pills for abortion, both in the United States and internationally. 1 Participants came from: CA, DC, GA, MA, NC, NY, OK, TN, TX, WA and the Netherlands. Bold Actions to Meet Women’s Needs – December 2013 1 This experience was framed as one of women helping other women meet their own needs for safe abortion when and where clinical services are failing them. Francine Coeytaux shared the history of misoprostol use for self-induction, which started in the 1980s when women in Brazil discovered that misoprostol, a readily available drug, could help them end an unwanted pregnancy. As women began to use the drug on a large scale, spreading the information to others, they changed the public health landscape in Brazil, significantly reducing the rates of morbidity due to unsafe abortion. Since then, the medical community has confirmed this and other gynecological indications of misoprostol and scientifically documented that it can be used safely and effectively by women for abortion. Indeed, today it is misoprostol combined with mifepristone that is the regimen used in the US and abroad to provide medical abortions (i.e., abortions with pills in contrast to a surgical procedure). Lessons from other countries: Leila Hessini shared the lessons learned from other women in the global south, describing some of the strategies women who live in countries with restricted legal abortion access are using to challenge centralized healthcare systems and implement more woman-centered care. She stressed that how we think about the landscape of abortion access and safety has changed worldwide. The framing is no longer exclusively “Is abortion legal or illegal?” or that “legality equals safety,” but rather acknowledging that even in places where there are tight legal restrictions limiting or prohibiting provision of abortion in the formal medical system, some women are able to gain access to information, care, and drugs and to have safe abortions in their homes and communities. Questions that Ipas is exploring in its research internationally are also relevant for discussions in the US: What do women need to know in order to have a safe abortion experience? How do women want to obtain information about self-induction (friend, workplace, school, confidential hotline, self-help guidebook or website)? Who do women trust as credible sources of information? Leila also shared the findings of a recent program the Public Health Institute and Ipas implemented in Kenya and Tanzania.2 This initiative, which provided small grants to local organizations to share information about misoprostol with women in their underserved communities, produced two important lessons: 1) that the communities were hungry for information about misoprostol precisely because it empowered women to help themselves, and 2) a grassroots approach of community mobilization to get the information out was the best way to proceed. It was these lessons that inspired the meeting organizers to bring this strategic conversation to the US in the hopes that doing so would produce benefits for US women, particularly those who live in states where new restrictions on abortion are creating barriers to access that are impassable for many. Misoprostol Alone Working Group: Melanie Zurek (Provide) gave an overview of the work of the Misoprostol Alone Working Group, which was active from 2006 to 2010. Working group members included Provide (at that time Abortion Access Project), Ibis, Gynuity, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and later, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). In 2009 Provide commissioned CRR to review the laws of four states (IL, NY, SC, TX) that could expose women, providers, or advocates to criminal prosecution for self-induction. The Working Group also produced a set of talking points to counter unproductive media stories and stigmatization of immigrant communities. 2 Coeytaux, F., et al., Facilitating women's access to misoprostol through community-based advocacy in Kenya and Tanzania, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, in press (published online 1/21/14). Bold Actions to Meet Women’s Needs – December 2013 2 Melanie reported that the focus of the Working Group was on mitigating harm and assessing what steps the reproductive health, rights, and justice community might take to support women who choose self- induction in light of potential legal risks faced by women, providers, and advocates. The Working Group considered legal, public education, provider education, media, and research strategies. At times, this also included consideration of whether it was ethical to recommend the self-use of misoprostol as an abortion method, given the perception among some that it was substandard to the medical care a woman would receive in a clinic or substandard to mifepristone/misoprostol combined regimen; this tension was not resolved among Working Group members. While the Working Group agreed that the use of misoprostol by women was safe and effective, it did not identify a compelling need for direct action at that time and emphasized the continuation of existing work to secure equitable access to clinic-based care. In 2009, Gynuity and Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP) sponsored a conference in New York City on misoprostol self-induction and produced a report entitled “The Best Defense Is a Good Offense: Misoprostol, Abortion, and the Law.” The report was distributed to the meeting participants and the document is available from RHTP (http://www.rhtp.org/abortion/misoprostol/default.asp). Texas Summit: Susan Yanow and Leila Hessini reported on a meeting they had recently participated in held in Austin, Texas in November 2013. Organized by Marlene Fried and Susan Yanow under CLPP (Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program at Hampshire College), the goal of the meeting was to identify strategies that could be used in Texas to counter the abortion regulations and legal restrictions that are resulting in a severe shortage of abortion services. Journalists have reported that some women in Texas and in other border states are using misoprostol and there have been some legal prosecutions of individual women seeking self-induction. Meeting participants re-examined some of the strategies and questions raised in the “The Best Defense Is a Good Offense: Misoprostol, Abortion, and the Law” report and brainstormed about what to call the self-induction process so as to be informative but not stigmatizing. Research on self-induction in the United States: Dan Grossman (Ibis Reproductive Health) provided an overview of studies undertaken on misoprostol self-use and self-induction methods more broadly: A survey in ob/gyn clinics in New York City (1999), in which 15% of respondents knew someone who had taken misoprostol; they considered it easier and less expensive than an in-clinic abortion. A prevalence study [based on Guttmacher’s 2008 abortion patient survey], which included a question on whether the respondent had ever self-induced (for this abortion or any previous one); 2.6% reported using some method to self-induce (1.2% identified misoprostol specifically). Foreign- born women were significantly more likely to have used misoprostol or another substance, but this outcome was not correlated with a particular race or ethnicity. A study conducted jointly by Ibis and Gynuity (2008-09) involved surveys of 1400 women in health clinics (not while seeking an abortion) in New York, San Francisco, and Boston about their knowledge of and experience with self-induction.
Recommended publications
  • Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control Jonathan Will Mississippi College School of Law, Jwill@Mc.Edu

    Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control Jonathan Will Mississippi College School of Law, [email protected]

    Mississippi College School of Law MC Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Publications 2018 Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control Jonathan Will Mississippi College School of Law, [email protected] I. Glenn Cohen Harvard Law School, [email protected] Eli Y. Adashi Brown University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.mc.edu/faculty-journals Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation 93 Ind. L. J. 499 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at MC Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of MC Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control* JONATHAN F. WILL, JD, MA, 1. GLENN COHEN, JD & ELI Y. ADASHI, MD, MSt Just three days prior to the inaugurationof DonaldJ. Trump as President of the United States, Representative Jody B. Hice (R-GA) introducedthe Sanctity of Human Life Act (H R. 586), which, if enacted, would provide that the rights associatedwith legal personhood begin at fertilization. Then, in October 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services releasedits draft strategicplan, which identifies a core policy of protectingAmericans at every stage of life, beginning at conception. While often touted as a means to outlaw abortion, protecting the "lives" of single-celled zygotes may also have implicationsfor the practice of reproductive medicine and research Indeedt such personhoodefforts stand apart anddistinct from more incre- mental attempts to restrictabortion that target the abortionprocedure and those who would perform it.
  • 1 Introduction

    1 Introduction

    1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 ABORTION WORLDWIDE Abortions have been available in all cultures since ancient times (1, 2). Nowadays, an estimated 43.8 million abortions are carried out worldwide each year. About one in five pregnancies ends in an abortion (3). Each year, approximately 21.6 million women worldwide still undergo an unsafe abortion, resulting in an estimated 47000 deaths, largely among the most vulnerable women, such as poor, unmarried and young women in particular. Apart from the deaths caused by unsafe abortions, another 5 million women per year have to deal with temporary or permanent disabilities and are accompanied by huge financial and social costs to themselves, their families and the health care systems (4, 5). Goal 5 of the Millennium Development Goals is to reduce the maternal mortality ratio in 25 years by 75% and to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by 2015 (6). Unsafe abortion is one of the main causes of maternal mortality and could be prevented. Complications from unsafe abortion accounted for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide (7). The definition of unsafe abortion by the World Health Organization (WHO) is: a procedure for terminating a pregnancy that is performed by an individual lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both. Recently, the WHO added the following: “The persons, skills, and medical standards considered safe in the provision of abortion are different for medical and surgical abortion, and also depend on the duration of pregnancy. What is considered “safe” should be interpreted in line with the current WHO technical and policy guidance” (8).
  • <I>Personhood Under the Fourteenth Amendment</I>

    <I>Personhood Under the Fourteenth Amendment</I>

    Marquette Law Review Volume 101 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 2017 Personhood Under the Fourteenth Amendment Vincent J. Samar Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Repository Citation Vincent J. Samar, Personhood Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Marq. L. Rev. 287 (2017). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol101/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SAMAR - MULR VOL. 101, NO.2 (PDF REPOSITORY).DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/24/18 1:04 PM MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 101 Winter 2017 Number 2 PERSONHOOD UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VINCENT J. SAMAR* This Article examines recent claims that the fetus be afforded the status of a person under the Fourteenth Amendment. It shows that such claims do not carry the necessary objectivity to operate reasonably in a pluralistic society. It then goes on to afford what a better view of personhood that could so operate might actually look like. Along the way, this Article takes seriously the real deep concerns many have for the sanctity of human life. By the end, it attempts to find a balance for those concerns with the view of personhood offered that should engage current debates about abortion and women’s rights.
  • Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?

    Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?

    PROTECTING PRENATAL PERSONS: DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBIT ABORTION? What should the legal status of human beings in utero be under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national “right to abortion” can be justified on originalist grounds.1 Assuming that it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade2 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylva- nia v. Casey3 were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain authority to make abortion policy? INTRODUCTION During initial arguments for Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas ar- gued that “the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and mean- ing of the Fourteenth Amendment.”4 The Supreme Court rejected that conclusion. Nevertheless, it conceded that if prenatal “per- sonhood is established,” the case for a constitutional right to abor- tion “collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaran- teed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”5 Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, observed that Texas could cite “no case . that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”6 1. See Antonin Scalia, God’s Justice and Ours, 156 L. & JUST. - CHRISTIAN L. REV. 3, 4 (2006) (asserting that it cannot); Jack M. Balkin, Abortion and Original Meaning, 24 CONST. COMMENT. 291 (2007) (arguing that it can). 2. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 3. 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 4. Roe, 410 U.S. at 156. Strangely, the state of Texas later balked from the impli- cations of this position by suggesting that abortion can “be best decided by a [state] legislature.” John D.
  • The Impact of Northern Ireland's Abortion Laws on Women's Abortion Decision-Making and Experiences

    The Impact of Northern Ireland's Abortion Laws on Women's Abortion Decision-Making and Experiences

    Downloaded from http://srh.bmj.com on January 16, 2019 - Published by group.bmj.com Research The impact of Northern Ireland’s abortion laws on women’s abortion decision-making and experiences Abigail R A Aiken,1,2 Elisa Padron,3 Kathleen Broussard,2,4 Dana Johnson1 1LBJ School of Public Affairs, ABSTRACT University of Texas at Austin, Key messages Background In Northern Ireland, abortion is Austin, Texas, USA 2 Population Research Center, illegal except in very limited circumstances to ► Women in Northern Ireland still University of Texas at Austin, preserve a woman’s life or to prevent permanent experience multiple barriers to travelling Austin, Texas, USA or long-term injury to her physical or mental 3College of Natural Sciences, to access abortion care even though University of Texas at Austin, health. Abortions conducted outside the law are abortions are now provided free in Great Austin, Texas, USA a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. Britain. 4Department of Sociology, We assessed the impacts of Northern Ireland’s ► Self-managed medication abortion using University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA abortion laws on women's decision-making and online telemedicine may be preferred experiences in accessing abortion. over travel due its convenience and Correspondence to Methods Between April 2017 and February safety, but the experience is dominated Dr Abigail R A Aiken, LBJ School 2018 we interviewed 30 women living in by fear and isolation due to the risk of of Public Affairs, University Northern Ireland who had sought abortion prosecution. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA; araa2@ utexas.
  • B1 Self Managed Abortion

    B1 Self Managed Abortion

    B1- Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 1 I. Title: Ensuring Support for and Access to Self-Managed Abortion 2 3 II. Author Identification 4 • Monique Baumont, Center for Reproductive Rights, 199 Water St, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 5 10038, [email protected], Member #10432693, Sexual and Reproductive Health 6 Section 7 • Bonnie K Epstein, unaffiliated, 4403 Riverview Ave, Englewood, NJ 07631, 8 [email protected]. Member #9855820, Sexual and Reproductive Health Section. 9 • Caitlin Phelps, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 409 12th Street, SW 10 Washington, DC 20024-2188, [email protected], Member #9847505, Sexual and Reproductive 11 Health Section 12 • Silpa Srinivasulu, Reproductive Health Access Project, P.O. Box 21191, New York, NY 10025, 13 [email protected], Member #10338166, Sexual and Reproductive Health Section 14 15 III. Co-Sponsorship: Sexual and Reproductive Health Section 16 17 IV. Collaborating Units: N/A 18 19 V. Endorsement: International Health Section 20 21 VI. Summary 22 Access to abortion care is essential to the health, well-being, and bodily autonomy of pregnant 23 people and their families. While the right to abortion is constitutionally protected in the U.S., restrictive 24 state and federal legislation and regulations have eroded this right. These policies have exacerbated 25 structural inequities to undermine and impede access to care, disproportionately affecting Black, 26 Indigenous, and people of color, those with lower incomes, immigrants, and people in rural areas. Due to 27 logistical and financial barriers to accessing abortion care, and some people’s personal preferences and 28 experiences of stigma and structural racism with respect to the medical system, there has been 29 considerable growth in demand for self-managed abortion in the U.S.
  • Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment

    Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment

    “#Repealthe8th”: Ireland, Abortion Access and the Movement to Remove the Eighth Amendment SINÉAD KENNEDY*1 Abstract Abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances in Ireland, permitted only where there is a risk to the life of the woman due to the eighth amend- ment to the Irish Constitution. While abortion is banned, women living in Ireland do access abortion; they do so legally by travelling abroad, and illegally within Ireland by accessing the abortion pill online. This access is highly mediated by race, class and migration status. This article will consider the politics of Ireland’s abortion ban through the prism of public debates around abortion, reflecting on the discursive devices employed to both chal- lenge and uphold the status quo on abortion. This conclusion will focus on different dimensions of the “Repeal” movement; a movement that pro- pelled Ireland to finally face up to the reality of abortion and change it laws through removing the eighth amendment from the constitution. Keywords: Abortion; Migration; Repeal; Movement; Ireland On Friday 25th May 2018 the Irish electorate voted by two to one majority to remove Article 40.3.3, the prohibition on abortion, from the Irish Con- stitution. While opinion polls had suggested that those who campaigned to remove the ban on abortion would win, it was predicted to be a close result; no one predicted the sheer scale of the victory and the support from every section of society, young and old, urban and rural. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum the result was heralded as nothing short of revolutionary by journalists and activists alike who understood it to be part of a major gender and generational shift in Irish political life.
  • Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: in Search of Decriminalization Marge Berer

    Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: in Search of Decriminalization Marge Berer

    HHr Health and Human Rights Journal HHR_final_logo_alone.indd 1 10/19/15 10:53 AM Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization marge berer Abstract The aim of this paper is to provide a panoramic view of laws and policies on abortion around the world, giving a range of country-based examples. It shows that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions surrounding abortion do not make any legal or public health sense. What makes abortion safe is simple and irrefutable—when it is available on the woman’s request and is universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose. However, the road to law reform is long and difficult. In order to achieve the right to safe abortion, advocates will need to study the political, health system, legal, juridical, and socio-cultural realities surrounding existing law and policy in their countries, and decide what kind of law they want (if any). The biggest challenge is to determine what is possible to achieve, build a critical mass of support, and work together with legal experts, parliamentarians, health professionals, and women themselves to change the law—so that everyone with an unwanted pregnancy who seeks an abortion can have it, as early as possible and as late as necessary. Marge Berer is international coordinator of the International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion, London, UK, and was the editor of Reproductive Health Matters, which she founded, from 1993 to 2015. Please address correspondence to Marge Berer. Email: [email protected].
  • Constitutional Amendment: Abortion Ban & Fetal Personhood

    Constitutional Amendment: Abortion Ban & Fetal Personhood

    Constitutional Amendment: Abortion Ban & Fetal Personhood HJR 18 - Rep. Moon (R-157, Ash Grove) ​ ​ ​ This extreme, unconstitutional measure would ban abortion and common forms of contraception. House Joint Resolution 18 is an extreme measure that bans all abortion in Missouri, including in ​ cases of rape, incest and when the health of the pregnant person is in danger. It also bans emergency contraception and commonly used forms of birth control, including the pill and the IUD. It declares the legal “personhood” of embryos and grants embryos rights that would supersede those of pregnant people. Personhood measures have extreme and dangerous consequences. ● This bill is designed solely to criminalize abortion, including for victims of rape and incest, and in life-threatening emergencies. ● Declaring an embryo to be a full legal person would ban common forms of birth control, like the pill and the IUD, as well as emergency contraception. ● This measure could prevent a person with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the health care they need. These restrictions do not meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s new standard. ● It is important for legislators and the public to know that last summer’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt established a much clearer ​ ​ legal standard that abortion restrictions must meet: the benefit of a given abortion restriction must outweigh the burden it imposes. ● This new standard applies to any and all abortion restrictions, whether it's a TRAP law, a restriction on a certain medical procedure, or a restriction on the health care professionals who provide reproductive health care.
  • Eliminating the Initial In-Person Medical Abortion Visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G

    Eliminating the Initial In-Person Medical Abortion Visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G

    Contraception 92 (2015) 190–193 Commentary Reaching women where they are: eliminating the initial in-person medical abortion visit☆ ⁎ Elizabeth G. Raymonda, , Daniel Grossmanb,c, Ellen Wiebed, Beverly Winikoffa aGynuity Health Projects, 15 E 26th Street, Suite 801, New York, NY, 10010, USA bIbis Reproductive Health, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA cDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA dDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia and Medical Director, Willow Women's Clinic, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Received 28 May 2015; revised 22 June 2015; accepted 23 June 2015 Abstract The requirement that every woman desiring medical abortion must come in person to a clinical facility to obtain the drugs is a substantial barrier for many women. To eliminate this requirement in the United States, two key components of the standard initial visit would need to be restructured. First, alternatives to ultrasound and pelvic exam would need to be identified for ensuring that gestational age is within the limit for safe and effective treatment. This is probably feasible: for example, data from a large study suggest that in selected patients menstrual history is highly sensitive for this purpose. Second, the Food and Drug Administration would need to remove the medically unwarranted restriction on distribution of mifepristone. These two changes could allow provision of the service by a broader range of providers in nontraditional venues or even by telemedicine. Such options could have profound benefits in reducing cost and expanding access to abortion. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Karen Wiederaenders Fairway, KS January 21, 2020 House Federal & State Affairs Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee

    Karen Wiederaenders Fairway, KS January 21, 2020 House Federal & State Affairs Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee

    Karen Wiederaenders Fairway, KS January 21, 2020 House Federal & State Affairs Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee Opposition testimony to SRC 1613 and HRC 5019 My name is Karen Wiederaenders and I live in Fairway, KS. I am retired but in my professional life I was a medical librarian, and I served as the Director of Library Services over the entire St. Luke’s Health System, an 11-hospital system in the Kansas City area. I hold two Master‘s degrees, one in Bioethics and one in Library Science. In my role as the Director of Library Services I provided reference services for everyone in the system. Since St. Luke’s is a tertiary care hospital, many of the questions I received concerned a high level of care for unusual cases, often including difficult pregnancy complications. Additionally, I am a permanent member of the hospital bioethics committee and have assisted on hundreds of ethical consults. I would like to present research that I believe is relevant to the issue of abortion. I am submitting a paper I wrote while completing my Masters in Bioethics. This paper is called Personhood: A Legal and Bioethical Synthesis. In this paper, I examined the characteristics which make us sentient human beings and tried to find the stages at which the human fetus reaches certain capacities, such as the ability to feel pain. I think you will find my paper helpful in reaching agreement about the moral status of the fetus. There are some who make the false claim an abortion is never medically needed to protect the life and health of a mother, such as the founder of Live Action, Lila Rosei, and the signers of The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Careii.
  • Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman's Health V. Hellerstedt Care, and in Vitro Fertilization

    Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman's Health V. Hellerstedt Care, and in Vitro Fertilization

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 2 Article 5 2016 Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Steven R. Morrison Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven R. Morrison, Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 447 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 2·2016 Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Steven R. Morrison† Abstract Over the past six years, pro-life advocates have used Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws and state-level consti- tutional personhood amendments to end abortion. The United States Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt suggests that the TRAP strategy will give way to a greater push for personhood amendments. This is so for three reasons. First, Whole Woman’s Health undermined the woman’s-health basis for TRAP laws and may encourage advocates to refocus their efforts on fetal rights. Second, Whole Woman’s Health limited the types of sta- tutes that can survive judicial scrutiny, but left constitutional amend- ments untouched. Third, with TRAP laws under attack, the pro-life movement’s only other sustained, institutional strategy is to push personhood amendments.