The debate between women, families, doctors, and the federal government, over the issue of abortion and who makes the final decision, has been an ongoing topic of discussion for decades. Most abortions had become illegal in the United States by the year 1880 and did not become legal again until the Roe v. Wade case took place on January 22, 1973 ("Roe v. Wade."). Once it became legal, people fought over many things such as whether abortion was wrong, be illegal, and who should have the right to decide. Every pregnancy begins and progresses differently than others; certain medical and family situations arise that require a woman to seek an abortion because abortion is in the best interest of her or her baby. In a time where a current government threat of interference against abortions is occurring, doctors and the federal government should not be allowed to regulate all women under restrictive laws and prevent them from receiving the healthcare they need.

I will start my paper with government issues by discussing the Roe v. Wade case, current abortion laws, the plans current presidential candidates have for abortion, and Planned Parenthood in the near future. As the presidential election approaches, candidates continue to stress their stance on abortion and Planned Parenthood clinics. Planned Parenthood is an organization that "delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide" ("Who We Are"). One of the health care options a woman can receive through the clinics includes abortion procedures. Because Planned Parenthood gives women safe abortions and other health care necessities, it is important that these clinics remain open and I will discuss this in more detail further on. Following the government issues, I will deliberate the issues women have, when seeking abortions, due to doctor's rejection solely on the doctors own personal bias. A common issue women are facing includes doctors declining work because they refuse to perform abortions on their patient. Due to the doctor's personal stance on abortion, they refuse to give women what they need. Even if medical and family situations lead a woman to the need for an abortion, doctors still refuse treatment which can cause issues I will discuss in more detail later. This should not be allowed because ultimately it is the woman's decision; a doctor should not stand in her way of her personal choice because the decision affects her life and not the doctors.

Government:

Abortion became legal on January 22, 1973 as a result of the Roe v. Wade case ("Roe v. Wade.").  This popular court case started because Norma McCorvey, known as Jane Roe during the case to protect her identity, discovered she was pregnant. She had returned to Dallas; "[o]ut of work, severely depressed, with no money, she decided to seek an abortion" ("Roe v. Wade."). The father of her fetus had decided to neglect the care of the child and go his separate way alone. With all this in mind, she thought it best to receive an abortion but "the Supreme Court struck down an 1857 Texas statute that made abortion illegal except where the life of the mother was in danger" ("Roe v. Wade."). She was then referred to two women, named Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, who were in search of someone who would help them object the abortion laws that were set in place in Texas. While McCorvey was six months pregnant, she went to court in hopes to change the laws set in place and in return, receive an abortion. Unfortunately for McCorvey, a ruling in her favor had not come about until two years after her baby was born and adopted ("Roe v. Wade."). The court ruled the law unconstitutional due to its vague quality and unclear boundaries which created new laws regarding abortion. The court broke the new abortion laws into trimesters which stated that, "during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman's doctor. In regard to second trimester.., states may regulat[e] abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states regulat[e] or even prohibit[ abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother" ("Roe v. Wade ... "). 

It is clear from the Roe v. Wade case that state laws against abortion prevent women, like McCorvey, from getting the abortion procedure done even when it is the best option for them. McCorvey had no job to support herself. She had no money to buy necessities. She had depression which, speaking from the experience, can make an ordinary day be a tremendous struggle to get through. McCorvey's personal situation made her incapable of raising a child and therefore she had to choose what the best option for her and her baby was going to be. When she decided abortion was the best option, she could not go through with it because a Texan state-wide law was set in place. This is unfair because if a pregnant woman decides the best option for her situation is to undergo abortion, the state should not be allowed to restrict this. Her situation is different than another's situation and therefor they should be dealt with and ruled differently. Her reasoning for terminating the pregnancy is valid and the best option for her so her decision should not be controlled by the same laws as another woman. No person is better suited to make the life-changing decision for abortion than the woman herself.

Like the Roe v. Wade case, the government plays a huge role in controlling another aspect of abortion. The Roe v. Wade case dealt with a specific woman and her decision to undergo abortion. Once the case ruling prevented the government from placing country-wide laws restricting abortion, the government still found a way to control women and the abortions they receive through controlling the safe environment in which they can receive an abortion. Planned Parenthood is one location in which women who are seeking abortions can receive a safe and healthy abortion procedure. Lately, the news has shed Planned Parenthood in a negative light and therefor, there has been controversy on whether Planned Parenthood should be shut down all together. In fact, out of the two Democratic candidates and the three Republican candidates left in the race for presidency, only the two democratic candidates are pro-choice and wants to keep Planned Parenthood clinics open. Bernie Sanders, one of the Democratic candidates, "voted no on banning partial-birth abortion except to save the mother's life [and would like women to have] [a]ccess [to] safe, legal abortion without restrictions" ("Abortion: 2016 Contenders' Views"). He sees the need for abortion in certain cases and feels women should have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. On the other hand, the Republican candidates take the opposite stance. One of the Republican candidates, Donald Trump, is pro-life and feels abortions should be stopped. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood even though he believes "it is great when dealing with women's health, feels it is important, and knows millions of women are helped by the clinics" ("Abortion: 2016 Contenders' Views"). Another Republican presidential candidate that opposes abortions is Ted Cruz. He strongly believes Planned Parenthood sells body parts of unborn human beings and for this, he would like to "end funding for abortions and prosecute Planned Parenthood for the crimes they have committed" ("Abortion: 2016 Contenders' Views"). There has been speculations in the news regarding the videos found discussing the sale of body parts and the role Planned Parenthood has had. In fact, these videos are not very accurate and are deceiving which makes it a very pour reason to shut down Planned Parenthood all together. Planned Parenthood should be kept open to help women receive health care, including abortions, and inform people of important information regarding their health. Without places like Planned Parenthood, women would have no safe place to receive abortions. If her situation leads her to demand an abortion for whatever reason, she will find a way to get one, open clinic or unsanitary room. It is crucial to a woman's health and safety that she finds a safe place in which to get the procedure done. Planned Parenthood needs to stay funded and open so that women can make her own choice regarding an abortion knowing she can have a healthy and safe procedure. The government should not be allowed to put restrictions and even go as far as shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics because shutting them down will make it hard for women to undergo safe abortions in which they are legally allowed to do. By placing restrictive laws against Planned Parenthood clinics, the government is interfering and ultimately restricting all women and their right to a safe abortion under the same restrictive law preventing them from receiving the proper healthcare they deserve.

Doctors:

Another issue women seeking an abortion are facing include doctors refusing to give service due to their own personal bias. Women seeking abortions want a clean and safe abortion that will not harm their body. The way to do this is to find a doctor that will give the procedure. The issue of denial has been slowly increasing as personal bias towards abortion has gradually stepped into play. Due to religious beliefs or personal position, doctors choose to decline work so that they do not go against their beliefs. Women seeking a doctor's help do not wish to go against the doctors beliefs; they simply want what is best for them in their situation. It takes much time and heavy thinking to decide to go through with an abortion. Because of this, a woman should not have to go through the humiliation and conflict that comes from the rejection of a doctor. Doctors are sought out to perform their job and women should not be forced to leave unfulfilled when they need help.

Doctors refusing their services out of their own personal bias is more common than one might image. Do to religion and other reasons, doctors are refusing healthcare such as abortions, birth control, and the morning after pill. While each of these healthcare options are much different from each other, a doctors refusal regarding each of these treatments effects the women seeking them much the same way. A woman by the name of Lori Boyer had "been raped ...  by a man she knew  ...  he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward" (Erdely). She went to her doctor the next day in hopes of receiving the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy. Her doctor, knowing what she had been through, still refused to give her the medication due to his own personal bias. It is against his religion for a woman to take the morning after pill under any situation (Erdely). Because of this, he refused to provide her the medication she needed to save herself from potentially carrying the offspring of a rape case. She ended up leaving the doctor's office that day with no medicine. It left her feeling "so vulnerable ...  [and] victimized all over again"(Erdely). She went to a rape counselor who ended up directing her to a doctor that would give her the proper medicine she needed. Since her visit with the first doctor who denied her medicine two and a half years ago, she has yet to see a gynecologist because she is fearful that she will be judged again (Erdely). This is occurring more and more. While receiving an abortion is much different than taking the morning after pill, much of the same issue is occurring to women in both situations. Women are seeking help from doctors, either to prevent pregnancy or to put an end to it, and they are rejected. This leaves them feeling embarrassed and insecure which ultimately makes them too nervous to ever go back. This can be dangerous for a women's health in the long run. Without yearly checkups from a gynecologist, women are clueless to vital information about their health and what is happening to their body. Gynecologists, when performing examinations, check for a variety of things from STD's to cancerous lumps. Sometimes these things women cannot discover on their own and for that, a doctor must perform tests and examinations to make sure the woman is in good health. Doctors must stop refusing service because no matter their beliefs, a woman is seeking help because she is sure her decision is the best for her situation. In this case, taking the pill was best for Boyer to stop a pregnancy that would be a result of a rape. In other cases, abortion is the best thing to do in their own situation. Doctors must put aside their own beliefs, stop restricting them from the healthcare they need, and help their patients make the best of their situation. 

The doctor that denied Lori Boyer of her medicine did so due to his own personal bias stemming from his religion. Religions, such as Catholics and conservative Christians, are refusing to give women common and legal healthcare. Patients have been known to go to Planned Parenthood after having been denied service from other doctors solely because the doctors will not perform the operation. It has been reported that "[i]nfertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother" (Erdely). Even though the pregnancies in these cases are "doomed" and will not end well if continued through normal birthing means, the doctors are still delaying treatment because their religious beliefs are preventing treatment rather than helping the mother in need. No matter what the situation, the doctors still refuse service out of judgment and their beliefs. Also, The New England Journal of Medicine published a survey that stated, "63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere" (Erdely). More than half the doctors that took the survey believe it is right to deny a woman service if it goes against their religion. This shows how common it is for doctors to refuse the abortion treatment. This must end because doctors are compromising the women's healthcare due to their own religious beliefs and personal bias. Like Boyer, women can receive long-lasting negative effects, both mentally and physically, due to the refusal from doctors. Doctors should not be allowed to regulate and restrict women from proper healthcare due to their own beliefs because abortion is the best option for mothers seeking help. 

Some people counter my belief and feel doctors are entitled to their opinions and religious beliefs and therefor are not required to perform any actions the doctors do not wish to do. These people believe that doctors do not have to drop personal beliefs to help a patient take care of her issues and feel the patient should go elsewhere for treatment instead of forcing the doctor to go against religious beliefs and feelings. While this may be true and women should go elsewhere if their situation is not pressing, they do not always have the chance. Sometimes women are too worried or nervous to seek help early on out of fear of judgement or embarrassment. By the time these women seek help, it is too late to get rejected, make another appointment, see another doctor and get the proper procedure in time. The woman does not expect to be rejected nor does she plan on waiting so long to get help. Timing does not always work out and because of that, women and their health should not be compromised due to a doctor's religious beliefs. The doctor should find it in themselves and realize the abortion is the best solution for the patient and help her receive the treatment she needs. 

Another counterclaim some feel strongly for is the belief that women should choose adoption rather than abortion. Rather than end a life, some feel that the baby should have a chance to live even if it means living with a different family. People feel everyone wins in this case because then both the baby can live his/her life and the mother can still go about her life as if she is not a mother. Adoption is not always a viable option. While adoption in theory benefits the baby, since they will get to live, that is not always the case. Sometimes women seek abortion so that their child does not have to live with a restraining disability their whole life. Common structural birth defects include "heart defects, cleft palette/lip, and clubfoot" (Marusinec). Common developmental birth defects include "Down syndrome, sickle cell disease, and cystic fibrosis" (Marusinec). While living with a cleft palette or Down syndrome is not life threatening, it can save a child from years of bullying and pain. It can also save the family from very expensive medical or therapy bills that they might not be financially stable enough to afford. On the other hand, heart defects can be very life threatening and can cause a baby to live a very short life. The child lives their short life in doctor's offices constantly receiving checkups and are forced to take daily medication. The child is constantly restricted from running around and playing games with their friends. Their life is consumed by their heart defect and without surgery, their lives can sometimes end at a very young age. Most birth defects can be fixed with surgery however these procedures can be very expensive. The cost of pediatric heart surgery is more expensive than adult heart surgery and "researchers reported costs for surgeries [to be $92,529 although] within the 90th percentile threshold [they were] $213,803" (Dmyterko). With a life threatening heart defect, the cost for heart surgery is closer to the $200,000 range because the procedure is much more extensive. Depending on the financial stability of the child's family, they may not be able to afford surgery and therefor would not be able to help the child live a normal life. In this situation abortion would be a better option for the child and his/her family rather than adoption. 

Another situation in which adoption would not be plausible is when the pregnancy becomes life-threatening to the woman carrying the baby. While it is not very common, sometimes a woman should consider abortion instead of adoption because delivering her baby can kill her. Lucy Buckby was a mother of two with a third child on the way. She was excited about the pregnancy until her doctor told her there was a fifty percent chance she would die while in labor. After she collapsed on the floor while shopping, she was tested to see what could have caused the fall. As it turns out, Buckly's pulmonary arteries had high blood pressure (Innes). If she followed through with the delivery, there was a good chance she could die, leaving her two children motherless and her husband a widower. She chose to abort the pregnancy because in her eyes, there was no other option. Even if she had not wanted the baby, she could not wait and give him/her up for adoption due to her situation. She could not risk her own life to save the life of her baby. While adoption is a good solution in some cases, it clearly is not always an option. Every situation is different and with that, not every situation can be solved using adoption so ruling every abortion under a common, country-wide law to prevent abortion is unjust and wrong.

As the government and doctors hinder the ability for women to receive abortions, women are struggling to achieve the best treatment for their situations. When women seek abortions, they have thought through their options and concluded the best solution for them is to receive an abortion and better themselves without struggling to be a mother as well. First, the government and doctors should not be allowed to restrict women from the right to choose what happens to her own body. The Roe v. Wade case showed that sometimes struggling, pregnant women need abortions as a result of their hard and sometimes unpleasant situations. This case changed laws across America; this should be enough to show the importance of abortions yet some states have made it so abortions in their region is either illegal or hard to obtain. This is wrong and should be stopped. Secondly, doctors should not have the right to hinder a woman's choice for adoption based on their own personal beliefs. What suits a doctor and their lifestyle may not be what is best for their patient and the child. In times like this, when the patient does not have time to seek another doctor, they should do what is best for the patient and her needs. Thirdly, as the controversy with Planned Parenthood continues, I feel strongly that it should still be funded by the government in order to give women a proper and safe place in which to receive an abortion. Without the safety Planned Parenthood can give, women will choose and encounter unsanitary or dangerous means of receiving an abortion since the procedure will not be done properly. While some feel adoption is the best option for mothers and children, they are simply neglecting the fact that in some circumstances, women can encounter life-threatening health issues or the fetus would be born with birth defects that will make living life extremely hard. In this case, adoption is either not an option at all or it is definitely not a very probable solution. With this information, all women in all different situations should have the right and privilege to choose whether to raise a child or receive an abortion.

