The issue of abortion attracts the attention of various segments of society, including the judiciary, the civil societies, and the policy makers in government. Two women sought court’s intervention after the Connecticut welfare department refused to fund their abortions even after confirming that they needed urgent medical attention, as their lives were in danger. The department relied on the state’s regulation prohibiting extension of medical benefits for first trimester abortions irrespective of whether they are medically necessary. The district court handled the issue ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow exclusion of non-therapeutic abortions from a program that is funded by public money at the state level because employees should enjoy subsidized medical services on health complications related to childbirth and pregnancy. The court ruled in favor of the women who had been denied their democratic rights, as it stated that abortion had to be funded particularly when it is medically necessary to safeguard the life of the mother. The ruling has some strengths and weaknesses as discussed in this paper. The ruling has several implications because the debate on whether to allow abortion has dominated the political campaigns in various states.
One of the strengths of the ruling is that it gives women a chance to see life because some pregnancies are dangerous to their survival given the health complications associated with them. In societies that do not allow abortion at all, women have no option other than accepting to die with the pregnancy. This goes against the democratic rights of women because they have to be protected to enjoy their freedoms, such as freedom to choose what is beneficial and the right to life. Therefore, abortion is important for the sake of the mother’s health, especially mental wellbeing. Instead of losing the mother and the unborn child, it is better to save the life of the later because she has the capability of getting another child in future. Some pregnancies are a result of criminal activities and restricting women from getting rid of them is the same as supporting these criminal acts. The modern society is faced with the greatest challenge of rape and child abuse, which might end up bringing unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, the ruling on Meher and Roe serve as a breakthrough towards women’s freedoms. Because of advanced medical technology, doctors have the capacity of determining the nature of the fetus and once it is established that the child will suffer from various complications, such as physical handicap, genetic problems, and mental defects, abortion is the preferred option. Some people procure abortions because of social reasons, such as poverty and early age pregnancies. In this regard, the government should accept the reality and fund women at state and federal levels to go for abortions. The ruling on abortion is generally acceptable because it serves to regulate the size of the population, control groups in a population, and improving the quality of life.
Opponents of abortion are critical of the ruling on Meher vs. Roe because it denies the unborn an opportunity to enjoy life. For those opposed to abortion, the act does not free women from the various problem that have always affected their lives in society, but instead it provides a scapegoat for the government and the society in general not to cater for needs of women. In other words, funding abortion is not beneficial in any way because it only serves to extend immorality. Based on this, the ruling on Meher vs. Roe denies women a chance to access inexpensive and readily available childcare, as the government must always ensure its citizens fulfill their ambitions. Solving women’s problems entail creating conducive working conditions that appreciates the role of mothers and this involves providing a flexible scheduling and motherhood leave. If abortion is made illegal and socially unacceptable, the government will not have any other choice apart from designing strategies to support mothers in the family and in places of work. In fact, some feminists believe the current trend in which courts are supporting abortion is a plot by men to exploit women.
The arguments of the judges have implications in the society because many other courts will follow suit in making rulings on the subject matter. The legal profession, decisions are made based on the previous ideas and reasoning of the judges. Additionally, governments, both at state and federal levels, will be forced to design health policies that are supportive of abortion. Given an opportunity to serve in the court’s bench, I will definitely oppose any move to allow free procurement of abortion. Women’s rights are violated whenever abortion is carried out because the entire process is risky, especially when conducted by inexperienced doctors. If the country ends up allowing abortion, deaths associated with it will be high because those practicing it are not trained to do so. Any doctor is under strict instructions to save life and if they end up destroying it, it does not make sense training them.
Works Cited
O’Brien, David. Constitutional law and politics: Civil rights and civil liberties. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2014. Print.