El Salvador has one of the strictest abortion bans in the world, prohibiting abortion under any circumstances.
Women who have miscarriages or stillbirths have been accused of homicide or attempted homicide, with the
majority of charges falling on poor and marginalized women who have little access to education or access to
health care. These sentences can be as long as 40 years; in contrast, the maximum sentence for abortion
is eight years.
was enough evidence to convict her.
Women who have miscarriages or stillbirths have been accused of homicide or attempted homicide, with the
majority of charges falling on poor and marginalized women who have little access to education or access to
health care. These sentences can be as long as 40 years; in contrast, the maximum sentence for abortion
is eight years.
Evelyn Hernández Cruz was charged with aggravated homicide after experiencing a stillbirth in 2016.
At the time she was not aware she was pregnant, which was the result of a rape.
Her original verdict, and the accompanying 30 year sentence, was overturned; the court ruled that there At the time she was not aware she was pregnant, which was the result of a rape.
was enough evidence to convict her.
El Salvador’s political environment remains difficult, with an attempt to allow abortions in the cases of
rape or health risk to the mother failing in El Salvador’s congress; however, advocates have found some
progress in the courts. Prior to Ms. Hernández’s trial, three other women who had been charged with
homicide following a miscarriage or stillbirth.
Similarly, in some states strict limitations are in place. Earlier in the year, Ohio had attempted to pass the
“heartbeat bill” that outlawed abortions at the six week mark—the earliest a heartbeat can be detected—
which also is before most women know they are pregnant (the law does include exceptions for when the
mother’s health or life is at risk, though not for rape or incest). Though the Ohio bill was blocked by a
federal judge, other states have also passed “heartbeat” law in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Questions:
1. To what degree do you think the government can dictate what healthcare services its citizens can
access?
2. Do you believe that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?
I think it is the government’s responsibility to protect citizens and allow all citizens to have access to adequate healthcare. I also believe that access to abortions in equivalent to adequate healthcare because abortions will happen either way. However, the government does have the ability to take away access to healthcare, I think it is unethical to do so because back alley abortions will likely occur if legal abortions are unaccessible and this would likely lead to further harm and danger for women seeking abortions by any means. I do believe that in this current administration and with the current Supreme Court, it is possible for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. However, I do not believe it will actually happen, especially if Trump is not re-elected. But currently I do see it as a possibility.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Audrey in saying that the government has a responsibility to ensure that every person has access to adequate healthcare. Healthcare is a human right, listed under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights released by the UN. Whether or not abortion is a part of healthcare is a fierce political debate, but since the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that abortion should be legal up until the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and later changed the time limit to the beginning of fetal viability, the government should not be allowed to defy that ruling until it has overturned those rulings. Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court can overrule an act of Congress on the basis that it is unconstitutional - to force the act through would be literally unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Roe v. Wade will be overturned, simply because politics has tended towards progressivism.
It is the government’s role to keep citizens safe, and therefore the government must ensure that healthcare services are safe. Currently, organizations such as the FDA are in charge of this, how good of a job they are doing is debatable, but they are trying. Beyond this, I believe that if a medical procedure is safe, an individual should be allowed to have it if they so choose. The government should, in general, not interfere in one’s personal bodily autonomy. On the question of Roe v. Wade, I would say that it is currently up in the air. It used to be that justice Kennedy was the swing vote, and he would usually come down on the pro-abortion side of things. Justice Kavanaugh is far more conservative in comparison. However, Chief Justice Roberts, who used to be conservative, has moved more to the center in recent times. Therefore, I believe that we cannot tell for sure what will happen to Roe v. Wade.
ReplyDeleteI also definitely think that the government's priority should be healthcare, as Audrey said. Forcing a person to birth a child, which puts themselves at risk, is not a good example of American values. In this specific instance where the baby was a product of rape, punishing Cruz for getting rid of it is simply outrageous. Another great point that Audrey had brought up was how abortions would happen either way, whether it is illegal or not. If someone has made the difficult decision to get rid of their own child, it means that they must really believe that it is better for everyone if they got an abortion, and consequently go through more trouble in order to get it, even if it is dangerous. I do not think the government should have a large say at all, simply because there are cases such as this, where keeping the child is not the best option. It is impossible to tell a person's entire situation, so the best thing to do is just to trust that they know what they are doing. In saying this, I believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned (or at least until we can understand the situations these people are put into, which realistically, would be never).
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, one of the major goals that a country ought to strive for is providing accessible and affordable healthcare for all its citizens. Out of several dozen highly developed countries in the world, the United States is one of the only nations that do not provide universal health care. That being said, limiting healthcare services is an entirely different issue from providing them. Citizens ought to be able to enjoy whichever healthcare service that they wish to choose, as long as no criminal activity or harm is being performed. Instead of focusing our resources and effort on addressing the national conflict surrounding abortion, the U.S. government ought to be taking the necessary strides to better the current state of our healthcare system. In this way, people are given more opportunities and options that support them financially. In terms of the current controversy surrounding abortion rights, it would be unwise for the Supreme Court to take action and overrule Roe v. Wade. The reason is that many states, at the moment, support the notion that women have the right to control their body. If Roe v. Wade was somehow to be overturned, it would stir unwanted press and attention to D.C., and creating an even further divide in the nation.
ReplyDeleteI certainly believe that the purpose of the government should be to protect its citizens, and that means healthcare should be required. However, for this to occur, healthcare must be affordable and accessible for everyone. I don't believe the government should allow the health insurance companies to exploit individuals the way they have in the United States and in other countries. I was shocked to read that this woman could even be accused of homicide when she is grieving the loss of her unborn child, just like states in the US have begun to limit feminine reproductive healthcare. I think that if Trump somehow won the next election, Roe v. Wade could possibly be overturned. However, with the upcoming election, it seems that sort of decision could be detrimental to the rest of term.
ReplyDeleteI believe the government should be focusing on change towards the needs of the people: such as abortion. I believe the "my body, my choice" saying should be incorporated today, especially in the government. The women who would like to get abortions should have those rights to do it. So, in response to the first question, the degree that the government can decide the healthcare services its citizens have access to should be to make sure that healthcare is affordable and all people can access it. As well as the idea that healthcare should benefit all people; especially to those who want abortions. The government should be taking care of their citizens, not excluding them.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the country was so divided on the topic of abortion even after Roe v. Wade was passed, I think it's entirely possible that the decision can be overturned. I think the part that makes this debate so difficult is the interpretation of the right to life granted by the Constitution. Even so, I think the punishment for miscarriages and still birth is absolutely ridiculous, given that often times it is unintended. While I definitely agree that the government should not have so much say in what healthcare services people can access, I think that abortion can be removed as a healthcare service completely in some cases if the anti-abortion movement gains more momentum.
ReplyDeleteWhat someone chooses to do with their body should always be their choice. I don’t think any government or anyone in general should have the power to dictate that right. China had a time when abortion was forced on pregnant women, now El Salvador is declining women the option of abortion. Both of these laws violate the human rights of a woman and the roe v. wade court case. Overturn of this court case would be declare inequality toward women. Furthermore, El Salvador is grouping miscarriages in the same category as abortion, which is completely disrespectful to the women. They may already feel terrible for losing their child but for the government to get involved and turn this into a legal issue is not justified.
ReplyDeleteThe first question, boiled down to its bluntest form actually inquires to what extent can a government oppress its people and deny them of their inalienable rights. The only way to restrain a government is for it to institute and reinforce laws that restrain itself and it already has laws in place that serve as a basis to protect women who want abortions. The main motivation for most deprivation of rights’ occur because those in power get greedy. If abortion directly economically disadvantaged those in opposition of it, the fight would be more vigorous and successful. Furthermore, since Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973, the almost half century abortion restriction has been lightened, has acted as a cushion for American society to socially normalize women’s bodily autonomy. Logically, one could argue that due to abortion being legalized for such a chunk of time, there would be widerspread acceptance. Also taking into account recent political climate and shift to typically right-wing executive orders, I believe Americans will vote into office more democrats, people traditionally pro-life, and Roe V. Wade will not be overturned on the federal level.
ReplyDeleteGovernments should always be looking out to be the best for their people, but that's an incredibly idealistic and unrealistic point of view. Since the government is run by the people for the people, any positive actions should be attempted. In terms of healthcare, this means that giving the citizens access to all safe, beneficial healthcare should be the norm, without limiting what the people can have just because of prejudice or opinion. If, however, something is proven to be unsafe for the people, it shouldn't be allowed. This isn't really from a legal standpoint, however- more just something that should be happening, not what is realistically possible. I don't think Roe v. Wade will really be overturned, but I'm sure that there are methods to get around it or limit its ability to protect women's rights to abortion. Maybe this is a little hopeful, but I don't think the Supreme Court would actually interpret Roe v. Wade to be unlawful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete