“Trapped” by filmmaker Dawn Porter, is a documentary that follows the lives of medical professionals that work in the last remaining abortion clinics in the South. Since 2010, state legislatures have passed more than two-hundred and fifty laws restricting abortion clinics and their doctors (Porter). These laws are known as T.R.A.P. laws, or Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. These regulations are not applied to all doctors, or all OB/GYN’s, but are only targeted towards doctors that provide abortion services. The message that “Trapped” is trying to convey is that T.R.A.P. laws should be lifted because they are designed to ultimately close abortion clinics rather than regulate them, they increase unsafe at home abortions, and they are …show more content…
in opposition to the decision of Roe v.
Wade.
In the long run T.R.A.P. laws are trying to close abortion clinics down, rather than regulate them. Among these laws is H.B. 2 in Texas. According to “Trapped” H.B. 2 has closed down numerous abortion clinics all over Texas by requiring licensed physicians to receive transfer agreements or active admitting privileges within thirty miles of the clinic- which can be close to impossible to obtain in politically hostile states. Outpatient clinics perform the majority of abortions in the United States. “Trapped” claims, “Less than 1% of outpatient abortion clinics experience a complication that requires hospitalization” (Porter). However, the law also requires every abortion, even the abortion pill, to be done in an ambulatory surgical center. H.B. 2 also requires a patient to come in for four different visits with the same
…show more content…
physician prior to the abortion. This is difficult to achieve when there are restrictions on abortions over twenty weeks. This can also be a financial burden on low-income women. Taking off work so many times may not be possible, and as more and more abortion clinics are closing, women are having to travel across the state. The costs of travel and hotels are not monetarily possible to all women. In “Trapped” Amy Hagstrom Miller, owner of Whole Woman’s Health claims, “In combination of all those things (law requirements), we are going from forty-four clinics where highly trained physicians were providing abortions in a licensed environment down to six” (Porter). With these harsh requirements, T.R.A.P. laws are trying (and succeeding) to close abortions clinics down, rather than regulate them. In “Trapped” Gloria Grey, owner of West Alabama Women’s Center stated, “Closing the clinics will not stop abortions.
Women are going to have abortions, it is just then they will not be safe or legal” (Porter). This is a shocking but true statement. The documentary brings up that there are home remedies that can be found online that when ingested will (possibly) induce a miscarriage, thus ending the pregnancy. According to New York economist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Ph.D., in 2015 Americans entered at least seven-hundred thousand searches for variations of the phrase “how to self-abort” (Zerwick par. 13). The sudden rise of these searches started in 2011, when T.R.A.P. laws started getting passed, and was especially high in the South, where it is most difficult to get an abortion. It is estimated that over two-hundred thousand women in Texas alone have tried to end a pregnancy without medical assistance (Porter). This shows sufficient evidence that T.R.A.P. laws hurt women by limiting their access to safe medical
care. T.R.A.P. laws are in opposition to the decision of Roe v. Wade. The case of Roe v. Wade was decided by the supreme court on January 22, 1973 and affected forty-six states. The court ruled, “A woman’s right to abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Roe v. Wade 1). The verdict allowed states to restrict abortion as long as they did not create an undue burden to a woman’s Constitutional rights (Porter). The Roe v. Wade decision is challenged by T.R.A.P. laws because these laws are causing an undue burden. To avoid closure of the clinic due to not being able to fulfill the requirements of Texas H.B. 2 (the ambulatory surgery center requirements in particular), Whole Woman’s Health is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the state. The Center for Reproductive Rights is representing Whole Woman’s Health in its challenge against Texas H.B. 2. Not everyone is all for lifting T.R.A.P. laws. Some argue that abortion causes very severe risks. According to “Trapped”, “CDC [Center for Disease Control in Atlanta] put a first trimester abortion as safer than a penicillin shot” (Porter). However in Mississippi the law requires physicians must state the risks associated with abortion.It is a requirement by law to tell patients having an abortion can increase their risk for breast cancer. According to Dr. Willie Parker, owner of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Jackson Mississippi, “There’s no scientific evidence to support that” (Porter). It is also required to tell patients that there’s a risk of complications such as heavy bleeding, which can be life-threatening, and can only be controlled by having a hysterectomy (complete removal of the uterus). These risks however are the exact same risks that are associated with having a baby. A woman would not take on extra health risks by choosing an abortion over keeping the child. Some also argue that abortion is against God’s will. To quote a protestor outside an abortion clinic in Alabama from “Trapped”, “You can be a Christian, or you can be pro-abortion” (Porter). This however commits a false alternative fallacy under the category of “fallacies of presumption” because it wrongly assumes a certain disjunctive between propositions. Overall to me the argument that T.R.A.P. laws should be lifted is a very valid and strong argument. Putting my stance on abortion aside, I fully accept and agree that T.R.A.P. laws should be lifted. The regulations are crumbling women’s health clinics instead of improving them. It angers me that these laws had been passed in the first place and have succeeded in closing down so many abortion clinics throughout the South. The documentary “Trapped” was filmed in 2012, so I did more research to see if T.R.A.P. laws were still affecting us today. As stated earlier, Whole Woman’s Health proposed a lawsuit against Texas H.B. 2. This lawsuit reached the supreme court November 13, 2015 and became known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. On June 27, 2016 a decision was made. The final verdict states: The provisions of Texas H.B. 2 at issue do not confer medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burdens they impose on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, the provisions unconstitutionally impose an undue burden. (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 1) This is an incredibly important decision because it allows Whole Woman’s health, one of the six remaining abortion clinics in the whole state of Texas to remain open. “Trapped” by Dawn Porter is effective in its argument that T.R.A.P laws should be lifted because they are designed to ultimately close abortion clinics rather than regulate them, they increase unsafe at home abortions, and they are in opposition to the decision of Roe v. Wade. While others may argue that abortions cause severe risks, or that having a faith identity and having a pro-choice stance are mutually exclusive, this is just a misconception and an appeal to false alternatives. Although a bit out of date, “Trapped” is a highly influential documentary and I highly recommend it because the fight of reproductive health clinics in the United States is still seen today. Works Cited "Roe v. Wade." n.d. Oyez. 25 April 2018. Trapped. Dir. Dawn Porter. 2002. film. "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt." n.d. Oyez. 25 April 2018. Zerwick, Phoebe. The Rise of the DIY Abortion. 1 June 2016. 23 April 2018.
Throughout the years, modern medical technology has resulted in the recent legalization of abortions throughout many countries in the world. However, the process of terminating a pregnancy has been around since the time women were able to have babies. Though the court has permitted selective abortion, many believe that it is murder and disagree with anyone with a “pro-choice” view. Sidney Callahan, the author of the article “Abortion and the Sexual Agenda” fights all points made by Harrison and Petchesky and believes pregnant women do not have the right to control another body. In a case study about a family who finds themselves unexpectedly pregnant with their third child, Callahan would support the pregnancy and agree with Bob Thompson in
Controversy and arguments that were setbacks in the ongoing battle for women’s rights, specifically the right to an abortion, were put to slight a rest with the landmark verdict of Roe v. Wade. The revolution in reproductive rights caused by Roe v. Wade evolved from a spark in the hearts of women everywhere. When women claimed their rights as humans, that was when the face of women’s equality in all aspects started to change. The case of Roe v. Wade was the official legalization of a woman’s constitutional right to get an abortion in the United States, but the aftermath of any case is what makes or breaks the future laws and regulations. Through all of the restrictions, regulations, and loopholes, Roe v. Wade’s verdict stuck and continued to
The facts of this case show that Roe, who at the time was a single woman, decided to challenge the State of Texas’s abortions laws. The law in that state stated that it was a felony to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 1973). At the time many illegal abortions were being performed in back alleys and in very unsanitary conditions. Therefore, some states began to loosen up on abortion restrictions, in which some women found it easy to travel to another state where the abortion laws were less restrictive and they could find a doctor was willing to endorse the medical requirement for an abortion. Unfortunately, less fortunate or poor women could seldom travel outside their own state to get the treatment, which started to raise questions of fairness. Also, many of the laws were vague; therefore many doctors really didn’t know whether they were committing ...
...werful. To be able to understand the procedures that are used to terminate a life is very important for all involved in the abortion debate. This topic is so often without scientific argumentation, and the author of this article brings some of these arguments into the light. The author engages his audience effectively by presenting abortion ‘unfiltered,’ as the tagline for the website says. Unfiltered, something the youth of America want to see in friends, family, and politicians. Transparency is demanded. Abort73 delivers on this demand, and if abortion is the mass murder of children, the greatest thing Abort73 can do is present abortion unfiltered so that something can be done.
Abortion, which is defined as a deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, is one of the most controversial issues in society. Many people believe that abortion is unethical and morally wrong, while others believe that it is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body. According to www.census.gov, “the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at 1.2 million a year” (1). This statistic supports how many women are choosing abortion. Although abortion is legal in the United States, many people continue to voice their opinions on how it is a human rights violation and should be illegal everywhere. The practice of abortion should be banned in society because it terminates the life of an innocent unborn child, causes long-term emotional effects, as well as major health risks for women who opt for abortion.
In 1900 a law was passed banning women from having an abortion. Before 1900, abortions were a common practice and usually performed by a midwife, but doctors saw this as a financial threat and pushed for a law making abortions illegal. From 1900 until 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a women’s right to have an abortion, women who wanted to have an abortion did so secretly. These secret abortions were performed
Many mothers would agree that having a child is not the easiest task, and the thought of nine months of pregnancy is scary, especially when someone simply is not ready for a child; so women taking desperate measures to end their pregnancy is somewhat understandable. Found in an informational database, an article states, “Statistics clearly show that when abortion is made illegal or inaccessible, women who confront unwanted pregnancies inevitably turn to other, typically very unsafe, avenues to end their pregnancies rather than carrying them to term. Out of desperation, they may seek help from unqualified, unregulated providers who work in unsanitary conditions and provide no post-surgical care” (Abortion: Guide to Critical Analysis; Database). This proves that banning abortion inevitably causes a danger to women who do not want to have children, but are being forced to. With abortion banned there would be no more demand and jobs for physicians or providers of the abortion procedure to do so safely, which result in those desperate women to end their pregnancy on their own or with dangerous methods. However, because California already allows abortions, this problem is not too serious. The state of California has actually broadened the types of providers for abortions, which give women more options to choose who they believe will give them the
In October 2013, a Judge quickly ruled the law unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and blocked it. It was found that the new law placed a heavy burden on women who wished to end their pregnancies for whatever reason (Tomlinson). This block was later overturned and the majority of the law was reinstated. “District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that the regulations violated the rights of abortion doctors to do what they think is best for their patients and their health, and would unreasonably restrict a woman's access to abortion clinics (Tomlinson).” New regulations requires doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles distance of the approved abortion clinics. “Yeakel also partially blocked new restrictions on pregnancy-ending drugs, saying they "may not be enforced against any physician who determines, in appropriate medical judgment, to perform a medication-abortion using the off-label protocol for the preservation of the life or health of the mother (Rauf).” The goal of the Texas legislature is to completely abolish abortion within thei...
Illegal abortions performed in unsafe conditions contribute to a great number of deaths every year. According to Wendy Wanlund, “In 1930, illegal abortion was the official cause of death for nearly 2,700 women, or 18 percent of childbirth-related deaths recorded that year” (Abortion Debates). In the more than four decades since Roe v. Wade was decided, thousands of American women’s lives have been saved by access to legal abortion care. Furthermore, making abortions illegal would force women to go about terminating their unwanted pregnancies with unsafe procedures. Every year, millions of women in the developing world are treated for complications from unsafe pregnancy termination. These complications can include heavy bleeding, infection and sepsis, as well as more severe conditions, such as lacerations or uterine perforation, that can put a woman 's life at risk. Lack of access to abortion clinics does not result in fewer abortions, it results in unsafe and illegal abortions.
The aftermath of Roe vs. Wade, when Jane Roe successfully had abortion legalized in various places, many abortion clinics all over the country sprung up. Clinics like Planned Parenthood and NARAL “sought to give the right meaning by ensuring both the newly legal abortion would be accessible and that women seeking abortions would not be victimized by inflated prices or untrained doctors performing unsafe office abortions” (Tribe 142). There are many reasons women seek abortion. Many pro-choice people say that a rape victim should not have to give birth to her attacker’s child, and to do so is attacking ...
HB2 stated that abortion providers must “meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers” and that abortion providers must have “…admitting privileges…at a hospital not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced” (Pruitt and Vanegas 2015; Texas Legislature 2013; Whole Women 's Health v. Hellerstedt 2016). Unlike previous regulatory attempts by the state of Texas, which cited the well-being of women as the motivation for regulation, HB2 clearly stated that “…the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children…” (Texas State Legislature 2013). Studies conducted during the time period after the passage of HB2 until the repeal of the portion requiring that centers meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers found that HB2 had created a standard that abortion providers could not meet without undue burden (Pruitt and Vanegas 2015; Fuentes 2016; Gerdts 2016). Instead, many abortion providers closed their doors, leaving some individuals with no local options for abortion providers (Fuentes 2016; Gerdts 2016). In separate studies, Fuentes (2016) and Gerdts (2016) found that when clinics closed due to their inability to prescribe to the requirements of HB2, they left the individuals who would have used those abortion clinics without access to abortion providers. This in turn meant if women decided that they would pursue an abortion in a different
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
Abortion had been illegal since 1880 in the United States, unless it was “crucial in saving the woman’s life.” According to the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, by the 1950s, “about one million illegal abortions were performed annually,” resulting in one out of 1,000 women dying in the process. Accordingly, this brought to the forefront the importance of having safe medical treatment for women who underwent these procedures. As a result, beginning in the 1960s, women’s movements began pushing for their rights, including reproductive privacy after being inspired by the civil rights movement a decade earlier.
Expecting to completely eliminate abortions from the face of the earth by making them illegal and getting rid of the facilities that provide them is an awfully absurd idea due to the fact that abortions will never cease to exist. Induced abortions have taken place all over the world, and “societies have [been struggling with] the issue of abortion for millennia” (Abortion). Within countries where abortions are essentially illegal, many turn to unsafe abortion methods, usually performed by unskilled practitioners (Chapter 5). These procedures are “often unsanitary… and [result] in the death or mutilation of many women” (Abortion). In areas where these services are not attainable, many women are prompted to seek out specialists to assist them in dangerous and surreptitious methods of abortion such as repeated blows to the stomach and the insertion of bizarre objects in the vagina and cervix. However, abortion-related deaths are usually quite rare in developed countries where the service is both legal and accessible. It is estimated...
Millions of illegal abortions were done by the 1950s, and over a thousand women died each year as result. Moreover, millions of women who had illegal abortions were rushed to the emergency ward; some died of abdominal infection, and other, found themselves sterile and chronically ill. In 1969, 75% of the women who died from these abortions were either poor or of color. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that woman had the right of privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to obtain an abortion, yet, keeping in mind that, protecting the health of the woman and the potential life of the fetus is the main interest. As result of this decision, safe and unpainful abortion services were offered to many women. In addition, some health care centers provided counseling, women’s group offered free referral services, and, non-profit abortion facilities were created. Nevertheless, legalization was not enough to ensure that abortions will be available to all women, women of low income and of color still found themselves without safe and inexpensive abortions. Between the early 1980s, feminist health centers provided low-cost abortions, however, by the early 1990s, only 20% of these centers survived the harassment by the IRS and the competition of other