After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court has returned a critical strike to the core of women’s rights in the abortion arena.  The court in a 5-4 decision banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and Extraction.  This abortion procedure was performed after the 20th week of pregnancy.  While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was medically necessary to perform the procedure.

 

Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well.  The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself.  This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level.  The Supreme Court’s involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.

 

Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed?  The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions.  How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around?  What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?

 

Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge’s who are following Bush’s wishes and desires in regards to the case.  The case was sitting before a panel of judge’s who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.

 

The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide.  There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion.  One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs.  An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.

 

While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons.  There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life.  What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?

In previous years, generations ago women were considered property of the husband or father to whom they belonged.  Now as we have progressed into the 21st century women have stepped up to the plate and are an integral part of society and politics, on an entirely equal footing with men.  In the past, women were considered as belonging to their husbands or fathers, now they are the CEO’s of major corporations.  Women today are a very important part of society, with women in jobs such as judges, Senators, Congress, and even Governors – a feat that would have been highly surprising even twenty years ago.

 

These positions were not possible previously, with widespread social reform needed to bring about this change.  In previous years, women were only allowed to work on the family farm, or be a teacher, rather than being afforded experience in practical situations.  Women were expected to be married by the end of their teenage years, and were overlooked in conversations as being unable to contribute anything valid.  When elections were first started, women were not allowed to vote, they were barely allowed the right to run their own homes.

 

As society has progressed, we have seen women moving from the back of the line, to the front of the public eye, occupying more and more positions of authority and respect.  More women now than ever are working outside the home, and proving their own worth without a man to hold them up.  Many women are even choosing to not get married, as well as not have children, although experts are suggesting this will have implications for future generations.

 

With the push towards women’s rights, there has also been pushes towards expanding the rights for the lesbian community.  More women are stepping forward to fight for the rights that they are owed and due, alongside those already afforded to the male homosexual community.  Women have been taxpayers for as long as men have, at the same rates, and there are daily battles and struggles to overcome the problems and oppression that women are faced with, especially within the homosexual community to level this unfairness.

 

Even in today’s society and the move away from sexism there is still a notable difference in the amount of money a man earns compared to the amount of money a woman earns for the same job.  This is regardless of experience, training, and education, as many employers still feel women lack the competence to work within a competitive environment.  There are always major differences in the way issues are handled and there seems to be new differences appearing each and every day.

 

How society adapts is the important part, we are on the brink of the first woman in history winning a democratic party bid for the Presidency and this makes a wonderful time for women.  We are in the days, weeks, months and years following the Clinton presidency, and since then, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set an exception example for women by stepping out from behind her husband’s shadow and making a name for herself in the political arena. With her impact on the forthcoming Presidential elections still unknown, it will be interesting to see the effect this has on women’s rights both domestically and across the world.

 

Women are fighting and struggling each and every day to prove their worth, but with each day that passes a small victory for women’s rights, we are proving each and every day that we are a force to be dealt with.  Many people are eagerly awaiting the day when men and women are truly treated as equals.  It might be 2 days from now or perhaps 20 years from now, but it is a work in progress and will be accomplished.  By working together with the community as a whole, and avoiding a destructively defensive view point, women can promote their interests, as can men, to create a truly equitable environment.

This is a very ‘hot button’ issue that keeps arising in the face of politicians everywhere in the country.  What if anything should the government involve itself in for the issues of stem cell research?  How far should the government press into the fields of medical science research?  Should the government interfere at all, or stand back and come up with laws to handle the consequences of such research?

 

It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future?  With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy.  Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.

 

This brings the question, where do the embryos come from?  The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment.  The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.

 

The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own.  From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken.  This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.

 

The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves.  Whom do they belong to?  Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of?  Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder.  Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube?  Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?

 

The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world.  This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn’t be used?  Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?

 

The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos.  This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet.  Where is the better side to stand?  Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?