The Rollercoaster of Women's Health
In 1960, the birth control pill became available for public use. When “the Pill” first came out, 6.5 million married women saw this medicine as a miracle pill that if used, “sex became separated from its reproductive consequences.” While many people saw the Pill, as a medical miracle that would improve lifestyles, others considered it an obscene use of medicine in people’s sexual lives. Opposing positions, often couched in terms of morality, have continuously complicated reproductive health care services for women ever since the Pill, especially when the services pertain to abortion. The battle over women’s reproductive rights has shaped America by being one of the most controversial and polarizing topics in its history.
![Picture](/uploads/1/0/5/2/105201129/published/tfckwrc.jpg?1494206257)
Historical Context
Although personal privacy and individual choice would seem to go hand in hand with a woman’s reproductive health care services that has not been the case. For example, for some reproductive health care services, a woman had to be married in order to obtain them. Additionally, many of the battles involving women’s reproductive health care services have played out on the public stage of the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court has heard more cases on women’s reproductive rights than discrimination cases. Listed below are some of the Supreme Court’s key decisions involving women’s reproductive rights and society’s reaction to them.
Griswold v. Connecticut
In Connecticut during the 1960’s, it was illegal for people to give information or instruction to others about contraceptives. Another statute prevented the use of contraceptives. Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and C. Lee Buxton, a physician and professor at Yale Medical School and the Medical Director for the League, were convicted after a trial in which three married women testified that they had visited the center, had received advice, instruction and certain contraceptive devices and materials from Griswold or Buxton, and had used these devices and materials in subsequent marital relations with their husbands. The convictions were eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. In support of its statute, the state of Connecticut argued that preventing the use of birth control devices by married persons helped discourage extra-marital relations. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in 1965 overturned the convictions, basing its decision on a zone of privacy that the Court said was implied by the fundamental constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights. In its holding, the Court said:
Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family—a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization—surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so.
Shortly after Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, all eyes turned toward the Catholic Church awaiting its opinion and guidance regarding these new forms of “artificial birth control.”
Although personal privacy and individual choice would seem to go hand in hand with a woman’s reproductive health care services that has not been the case. For example, for some reproductive health care services, a woman had to be married in order to obtain them. Additionally, many of the battles involving women’s reproductive health care services have played out on the public stage of the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court has heard more cases on women’s reproductive rights than discrimination cases. Listed below are some of the Supreme Court’s key decisions involving women’s reproductive rights and society’s reaction to them.
Griswold v. Connecticut
In Connecticut during the 1960’s, it was illegal for people to give information or instruction to others about contraceptives. Another statute prevented the use of contraceptives. Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and C. Lee Buxton, a physician and professor at Yale Medical School and the Medical Director for the League, were convicted after a trial in which three married women testified that they had visited the center, had received advice, instruction and certain contraceptive devices and materials from Griswold or Buxton, and had used these devices and materials in subsequent marital relations with their husbands. The convictions were eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. In support of its statute, the state of Connecticut argued that preventing the use of birth control devices by married persons helped discourage extra-marital relations. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in 1965 overturned the convictions, basing its decision on a zone of privacy that the Court said was implied by the fundamental constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights. In its holding, the Court said:
Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family—a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization—surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so.
Shortly after Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, all eyes turned toward the Catholic Church awaiting its opinion and guidance regarding these new forms of “artificial birth control.”
Rhetorical Analysis of Primary Source
On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI released an encyclical letter called, “Humanae Vitae,” which discussed and reaffirmed Catholic beliefs on the regulation of birth. In his letter, the Pope stated, "The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator." The Pope went on to say that artificial birth control is unnatural and takes science too far, and thus rejected all forms of artificial birth control. This position was controversial because of the popularity of the Pill and its increasing use by married and single women. At this juncture, there was a widening chasm between the Catholic Church and women’s reproductive health care choices. The Pope did not want to push people away from the church, so he used ambiguous wording to not make too harsh of restrictions. The Pill was becoming a household pharmaceutical and millions of people each year decided to start taking it. Also with the push of drugs and sex in the 1960s and 1970s the younger generation was not finding validation in church, but in a new wave of community. Pope Paul recognized this and did not want to ostracize the users of the pill, but still wanted to align with the old Catholicism faith.
On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI released an encyclical letter called, “Humanae Vitae,” which discussed and reaffirmed Catholic beliefs on the regulation of birth. In his letter, the Pope stated, "The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator." The Pope went on to say that artificial birth control is unnatural and takes science too far, and thus rejected all forms of artificial birth control. This position was controversial because of the popularity of the Pill and its increasing use by married and single women. At this juncture, there was a widening chasm between the Catholic Church and women’s reproductive health care choices. The Pope did not want to push people away from the church, so he used ambiguous wording to not make too harsh of restrictions. The Pill was becoming a household pharmaceutical and millions of people each year decided to start taking it. Also with the push of drugs and sex in the 1960s and 1970s the younger generation was not finding validation in church, but in a new wave of community. Pope Paul recognized this and did not want to ostracize the users of the pill, but still wanted to align with the old Catholicism faith.
![Picture](/uploads/1/0/5/2/105201129/published/1345701921474-cached.jpeg?1494206691)
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Approximately six years after the Griswold v. Connecticut case, a woman’s right to birth control was back in front of the Supreme Court in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. Current Massachusetts law allowed married persons to obtain contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, but only from doctors or pharmacists with a prescription; did not allow single persons to obtain contraceptives to prevent pregnancy from anyone; and, allowed married or single persons to obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent the spread of disease, but not to prevent pregnancy. Baird was convicted for giving a young woman a package of Emko vaginal foam at the close of his lecture at Boston University on over-population and birth control. Although it was suggested to the Court that the purpose of the Massachusetts statute was to promote marital fidelity as well as to discourage premarital sex, the Court disregarded this argument because contraceptives were available to married persons without regard as to whether they were living with their spouses or the intended use of the contraceptives. In a 6-1 decision (two justices did not participate), the Court held that there was no rational basis for the different treatment of married and single persons under the Massachusetts statute, and therefore the dissimilar treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Court based its decision on the equal protection violation, the effect was to extend the right of privacy acknowledged to married persons in Griswold v. Connecticut to individuals.
Roe v. Wade
In the early 1970’s Texas state law outlawed all abortions unless it was necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Roe (a pseudonym), was an unmarried, pregnant, Texas woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions. In 1970, She filed a class action in which she sought to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional because she was unable to get a legal abortion in Texas, because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy, and because she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. Although Roe was no longer pregnant by the time the Supreme Court considered her case in 1973 (because she had delivered her baby by then), the all-male Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute was unconstitutional and that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was not without limitation, however. The Court went on to hold that for the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician. During this period, a state, if it chooses, could regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health, but could not interfere with the woman’s right to choose an abortion. After the first trimester and up until the fetus becomes viable, the Court held that states could regulate abortion to protect and preserve the health and life of the pregnant woman. After the fetus became viable, states could limit or prohibit abortions, except when necessary for the preservation of the health and life of the pregnant woman.
After the Roe decision, Gloria Steinem, a power figure in the feminist movement, said that once women are granted control of their reproductive system, they are granted equality. It was perceived that the court decisions regarding reproductive rights had even more significance than just providing additional health care options for women. It follows that the fight for reproductive rights became the second wave of the feminist movement (the first wave being about women’s suffrage).
The Battle Today
Although it has been over fifty years since the Pill became available, the battle over women’s reproductive rights is far from over. Abortion, contraceptives, and equality are still topics that are regularly discussed and debated in the United States Congress, state legislatures, and the courts. Political candidates must expressly state their position on abortion if they want to have any support from the major political parties. Reproductive rights is a sensitive, and at the same time, inflammatory topic to the extent that it has been used by some to justify the murder of doctors. Below are some of the notable occurrences of the last decade, which demonstrate that the battle over women’s reproductive rights is ongoing.
In 1992, the Supreme Court, with two new justices, modified the Roe v. Wade decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The Court said that states could regulate abortion during a woman’s entire pregnancy as long as the laws do not create an “undue burden” for a woman or place “substantial obstacles” in the way of obtaining an abortion. Since the Casey decision, there have been numerous other court cases as states passed laws to regulate and sometimes restrict abortion. The subject matter of these abortion related cases include: spousal consent; Medicaid funding; parental consent for minors; informed consent; compulsory ultrasound; and partial birth abortions.
Texas Abortion Law
In June 2016, the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt struck down parts of a Texas law that shut down 2/3 of the abortion clinics in the state by putting extra restrictions and regulations on them. These clinics were also a place where women received routine ob/gyn services. One regulation required that the physician performing or inducing an abortion must have active admitting privileges at a hospital located not further than 30 miles from the abortion facility. The other regulation required an abortion facility to meet the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers under Texas law. The Court noted that many of the surgical center requirements, such as requiring scrub facilities; maintaining a one-way traffic pattern through the facility; having ceiling, wall, and floor finishes; separating soiled utility and sterilization rooms; and regulating air pressure, filtration, and humidity control, were inappropriate for surgical abortion centers. In its 5-3 decision, the Court said that these new regulations did not make abortions any safer, but instead created an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have a pre-viability abortion.
There have already been sixteen different court cases since June 2016 pertaining to abortion that cite Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. No doubt the Supreme Court is going to have new cases in front of it that deal with some aspect of women’s reproductive rights. It does not appear that the conflicts will end anytime soon meaning that future attempts will be made to restrict reproductive rights and women will continue to push back.
Although it has been over fifty years since the Pill became available, the battle over women’s reproductive rights is far from over. Abortion, contraceptives, and equality are still topics that are regularly discussed and debated in the United States Congress, state legislatures, and the courts. Political candidates must expressly state their position on abortion if they want to have any support from the major political parties. Reproductive rights is a sensitive, and at the same time, inflammatory topic to the extent that it has been used by some to justify the murder of doctors. Below are some of the notable occurrences of the last decade, which demonstrate that the battle over women’s reproductive rights is ongoing.
In 1992, the Supreme Court, with two new justices, modified the Roe v. Wade decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The Court said that states could regulate abortion during a woman’s entire pregnancy as long as the laws do not create an “undue burden” for a woman or place “substantial obstacles” in the way of obtaining an abortion. Since the Casey decision, there have been numerous other court cases as states passed laws to regulate and sometimes restrict abortion. The subject matter of these abortion related cases include: spousal consent; Medicaid funding; parental consent for minors; informed consent; compulsory ultrasound; and partial birth abortions.
Texas Abortion Law
In June 2016, the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt struck down parts of a Texas law that shut down 2/3 of the abortion clinics in the state by putting extra restrictions and regulations on them. These clinics were also a place where women received routine ob/gyn services. One regulation required that the physician performing or inducing an abortion must have active admitting privileges at a hospital located not further than 30 miles from the abortion facility. The other regulation required an abortion facility to meet the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers under Texas law. The Court noted that many of the surgical center requirements, such as requiring scrub facilities; maintaining a one-way traffic pattern through the facility; having ceiling, wall, and floor finishes; separating soiled utility and sterilization rooms; and regulating air pressure, filtration, and humidity control, were inappropriate for surgical abortion centers. In its 5-3 decision, the Court said that these new regulations did not make abortions any safer, but instead created an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have a pre-viability abortion.
There have already been sixteen different court cases since June 2016 pertaining to abortion that cite Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. No doubt the Supreme Court is going to have new cases in front of it that deal with some aspect of women’s reproductive rights. It does not appear that the conflicts will end anytime soon meaning that future attempts will be made to restrict reproductive rights and women will continue to push back.
![Picture](/uploads/1/0/5/2/105201129/editor/tomi.jpg?1494208248)
Tomi Lahren
A household name in the social media world is Tomi Lahren. Known for her conservative, blunt views, Lahren has gained a massive following as well as a large number of enemies. Originally from North Dakota, she found her way to Dallas, Texas, where she had her own show, “Final Thoughts”, on the webpage The Blaze, which was founded by Glenn Beck. Lahren was on the air, week after week, espousing her extreme conservative views. This all changed very recently after Lahren publicly stated that the government should not have any say when it comes to women’s reproductive rights (i.e. abortions and contraceptives). Lahren was instantly suspended from The Blaze, and eventually left the show all together. This brought a lot of attention to the reproductive rights movement, especially because this situation involved a male boss suspending a female employee because of beliefs regarding her own rights to health care services; a highly successful women not being allowed to voice her personal opinions; and the reaffirmation of the misogynistic system women have fought so hard to remove. Tomi Lahren’s incident shows that women’s reproductive rights crosses party lines, class or personal ideologies. It can affect anyone and everyone.
It's Impact Today
The release of the birth control pill was a singular event that changed history. It launched a movement for reproductive rights; a battle that is still ongoing today. Although the Pill has opponents, 100 million women around the world use it to control when and how many times they become pregnant. It provides freedom and as noted by Gloria Steinem, perhaps equality too.
A household name in the social media world is Tomi Lahren. Known for her conservative, blunt views, Lahren has gained a massive following as well as a large number of enemies. Originally from North Dakota, she found her way to Dallas, Texas, where she had her own show, “Final Thoughts”, on the webpage The Blaze, which was founded by Glenn Beck. Lahren was on the air, week after week, espousing her extreme conservative views. This all changed very recently after Lahren publicly stated that the government should not have any say when it comes to women’s reproductive rights (i.e. abortions and contraceptives). Lahren was instantly suspended from The Blaze, and eventually left the show all together. This brought a lot of attention to the reproductive rights movement, especially because this situation involved a male boss suspending a female employee because of beliefs regarding her own rights to health care services; a highly successful women not being allowed to voice her personal opinions; and the reaffirmation of the misogynistic system women have fought so hard to remove. Tomi Lahren’s incident shows that women’s reproductive rights crosses party lines, class or personal ideologies. It can affect anyone and everyone.
It's Impact Today
The release of the birth control pill was a singular event that changed history. It launched a movement for reproductive rights; a battle that is still ongoing today. Although the Pill has opponents, 100 million women around the world use it to control when and how many times they become pregnant. It provides freedom and as noted by Gloria Steinem, perhaps equality too.