how to write a speech on abortion

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper

Tips for Creating Impressive Persuasive Speeches on Abortion

Table of Contents

Speech is a great way to persuade someone that your position or viewpoint on a specific topic is correct and reasonable. But, creating a good persuasive speech is a challenging task. Especially, when you chose such a controversial topic as abortion. 

There are a lot of questions about abortion and they are constantly discussed in society. Debates over abortion touches on different aspects like religious viewpoints, the legality of this procedure, and its morality. And to create a good-quality abortion persuasive essay , you need to know about all key points, rules, and best writing practices.

In this article, you will find all information about writing persuasive speeches on abortion. We will tell you about each step and share some useful tips. Keep reading to learn more!

Preparing an Abortion Persuasive Speech : Essential Steps

The process of writing any persuasive speech includes several steps. And all of them are equally important if you want to craft the best speech possible. Speaking of abortion persuasive essay writing, here are the steps you need to follow to prepare an exceptional speech:

• Research the topic. Before you decide what position to take in your speech, you need to learn as much information as possible about abortion and look at it from different viewpoints.
• Choose your side. Basically, there are only two sides you can choose from — so-called pro-life and pro-choice. The first side argues against abortion, and another side argues in favor of abortion as a legal right for every woman.
• Create a thesis statement for your abortion persuasive essay . 
• Outline your speech. Write down all the points you want to communicate in your speech and organize them. Find the strongest arguments from all your ideas and use only them. Weak points will not help you to create a good persuasive essay.
• Create the first draft. We will talk about each part of a persuasive essay structure later in this article.
• Revise your speech and edit it. Polish your first draft by changing sentences, removing mistakes, and checking the logical sequence of all points. Repeat the process as many times as needed to create a flawless final draft.

How to Start a Persuasive Speech on Abortion

The best way to start your abortion persuasive speech is with an attention grabber. It can be interesting statistics, or an intriguing question, that will make the audience keep listening to you.

After the first sentence, you need to move to your thesis statement. Basically, you will argue for or against abortion and you need to clearly state it in your thesis. But, it is also important to provide the key point why you chose one side and not another. Use one sentence between the attention grabber and your thesis statement to ensure a smooth transition.

How to Present Arguments in a Persuasive Speech About Abortions

Now, let’s talk about the main part of your abortion persuasive essay — argumentation. Basically, the less you write, the better. The meaning is you need to remove all unnecessary information from your speech. Provide short, precise facts and arguments, without deviating from your main point. Every argument should be formulated in powerful sentences that will hit your listeners and make them think critically.

The best way is to present an argument and back it up with a few facts or statistics. If you think that your argument can be unclear, make sure you add one more sentence to better explain your point. Once you communicate one point, move to the next one, that is logically connected to your previous point.

Don’t try to present all your arguments in one speech. Choose no more than 3-4 arguments, and make sure they are the strongest ones. Otherwise, your listener will be bored with the length of your abortion persuasive speech and unconvinced of the validity of your position.

How to End an Abortion Persuasive Speech

The conclusion is extremely important in a persuasive speech. It is the last chance to reinforce your point of view. So, if you want to impress the listeners and make them consider your position, you need to choose the right words for your concluding sentences.

First, you can summarize your arguments, just to remind the listeners of your key points. It should be a short sentence where you just repeat all points one by one. And after this, you need to make a final statement. 

There are a lot of options for how you can make it, and everything depends on what arguments you presented earlier. One of the most interesting ways is to end with a question that will make people doubt their position if it is opposite to yours.

Persuasive Speech About Abortion : Key Points to Know

We have already told you enough about the process of writing an abortion persuasive essay . But, the same with any type of essay, a persuasive speech has its special features. Here are some key points to remember if you truly want to persuade people of your viewpoint on abortion:

• As people usually listen to speeches, not read them, there is no place for abstract phrases and deviations from the topic. A persuasive speech should be precise, clear, and contain powerful statements and arguments.
• Use simple language, as people usually become less interested when hearing sophisticated words. No need to speak with too complicated phrases.
• Your words can be emotional and passionate. It will help to strengthen your message and evoke emotions among your listeners. Using formal, dry language in an abortion persuasive essay is not effective at all.

Final Thoughts

We have covered all essential points in writing a speech about abortion. Now, it’s time for you to get to work and create a persuasive speech. We hope our guide will help you with this task.

And remember, despite the fact that persuasive speech should persuade people, it rarely works like that. One speech is not enough to make a person immediately change their opinion on abortion. But, a good persuasive speech indeed can influence people and get them thinking further. And it should be your goal when writing an abortion persuasive essay.

Important things to remember as you write your essays on population

Tips On Writing Your Divorce Research Paper

Key Difficulties of Writing a Research Paper on Abortion

There's a Better Way to Talk About Abortion

The Way We Talk About Abortion Shapes How We Understand It

Women aren’t the only people who get abortions. “pregnant people” or “people seeking abortions” are less stigmatizing terms., instead of “heartbeat bill,” use “six-week ban” or simply “abortion ban.”, instead of “late-term abortion,” use “abortion later in pregnancy” or "later abortion.", avoid claiming that a state has “banned abortion”—and don’t share news stories that say so., instead of “chemical abortion,” use “medication abortion” or “abortion with pills.”, use “self-managed” to describe abortions people do themselves—never “back-alley” abortion., avoid the term “surgical” when referring to abortion—say "in-clinic" or "procedural" abortion., original reporting on everything that matters in your inbox..

By signing up, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy & to receive electronic communications from Vice Media Group, which may include marketing promotions, advertisements and sponsored content.

A better way to talk about abortion

• storytelling
• decision-making

• Bridging & Common Ground
• Business & Democracy
• Civic Engagement & Education
• Electoral Reforms
• Ethics & Leadership
• Governance & Legislation
• Inclusion & Diversity
• Media & Technology
• Pop Culture
• Advisory Board

Guide to a dialogue about abortion

Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners .

Abortion is one of the most polarized topics in American politics — one side favors access, the other side favors restriction. Simple enough.

However, Americans themselves hold nuanced, complex, sometimes contradictory perspectives on abortion. It is a peculiar irony that the complexity of those views also creates the circumstances for polarization. People have had vanishingly few opportunities to talk about abortion in their lives. It is so often taboo. Just as often, people find it too difficult to articulate their views and they choose silence instead.

This reticence has allowed the most extreme voices to dominate in the media, in our politics and in our communities.

On abortion, few, if any, political leaders express the views of the people they represent. But we can change that together.

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision that effectively reversed Roe vs. Wade. This turns one polarized national conversation into fifty distinct deliberations unique to the history, context, and communities within each state.

As our nation navigates conversations about this topic in the coming months — whether in direct response to the Supreme Court draft decision or not — it is essential to honor both the complexity and the urgency around this conversation. It is also vital to the future of our nation that we empower the voices of everyday people, so they are able to articulate and advocate their genuine, nuanced views.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

To support new conversations about abortion, Essential Partners has published a guide designed to invite citizens to make space for conversations about abortion that bring in deep beliefs and complexity. To transform the conversation in their individual context, it is crucial that we allow space for whatever comes up for people, even (or especially) if it is messy.

For a copy of the guide, go to:

https://whatisessential.org/resources/guide-dialog...

Laura Chasin, the founder of Essential Partners who co-led confidential leadership dialogues about abortion for the better part of a decade , often spoke of “liberation through structure.” It is so easy for conversations on this topic to go off the rails and devolve into unproductive venting or harmful, polarizing rhetoric—especially in times like these.

Structures and norms like the ones suggested in our new guide may feel awkward, but they also create the possibility of a new kind of conversation. You have to step out of your normal way of speaking and relating to one another in order to free yourself of dysfunctional, polarizing patterns.

This guide is designed to help you give any group an opportunity to reflect on the impact of the draft Supreme Court decision in a way that builds empathy, understanding, trust, and compassion — and then, if you choose, to help people wrestle with how they want to come together as a community to support people in a variety of ways.

Within this resource you will find general tips as well as guidelines and prompts for more formal dialogues that you can hold in your classroom, bible study, book club, institution or community space.

If this guide doesn't meet the needs of your context, if you have questions about the use of this guide or if you want some additional support and collaboration, please reach out for a free consultation with an EP expert .

• Ask Joe: Roe v. Wade - The Fulcrum ›
• Guide to Dialogues About Abortion | Essential Partners ›

The deadly shortage of primary care doctors

Why trump's running mate is less likely to be marco rubio than marjorie taylor greene, democrats take another crack at federal election reform, the misguided woke mind, the uncommitted ballot: voting as a form of civil protest, we must try to 'let it be' in 2024, democracy insights: polarization, participation and pathways forward, join an upcoming event, designing the perfect society (coh) – 1on1 discussion, ai and how it affects your vote, eugene public comment for star voting, unify challenge, an essential partners dialogue experience, living room conversations: building trust in elections.

Want to write for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Support Democracy Journalism; Join The Fulcrum

The Fulcrum daily platform is where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk, and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives. Now more than ever our democracy needs a trustworthy outlet

When it comes to political news, I can’t get no satisfaction

Can they play bach why bias in classical music must be dismantled., american business needs a strong democracy, not political retribution, the u.s. is at its best when it learns from its mistakes, a milestone in the bridge-building movement, what gives me hope logan county, ohio., new project will prep media, voters for 'election overtime', wordle can wait, large bipartisan majorities favor government regulation of ai, clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

Who is the new House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson?

Video: Jordan bully tactics backfire, provoke threats and harassment of fellow Republicans

Video Rewind: Reflection on Indigenous Peoples' Day with Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Video: The power of young voices

Video: Expert baffled by Trump contradicting legal team

Video: Do white leaders hinder black aspirations?

Podcast: dr. f willis johnson in rich conversation with steve lawler, podcast: dr. f. willis johnson in a rich conversation with patrick mcneal, podcast: better choices, better elections, podcast: are state legislators really accountable to their voters.

• Social Justice
• Environment
• Health & Happiness
• Get YES! Emails
• Teacher Resources

• Give A Gift Subscription

Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.

Explainer A data-driven story that provides background, definition and detail on a specific topic.

How to Really Support People Who Have Abortions

I had no one to support me after my abortion senior year of high school, mostly because seeking support would mean telling someone my secret. 

At the time, I lived with my aunt during the week to attend the high school in her affluent neighborhood. Though she was a Black woman, her predominantly White and Asian community was different from the one I was used to. I felt every bit of my status as an outcast.

The parallel lines on that pregnancy test were an added marker of difference that signified I was more of an anxious fugitive than a welcome visitor. At 17 years old, I was familiar with how an unintended pregnancy could derail one’s life, especially if it happened to a teen. On the other hand, I lacked a script for what to do when you didn’t intend to carry that pregnancy to term. 

Abortion stigma exists everywhere. Even in countries where abortion is incredibly accessible, people still face stigma, shame, and isolation.

Zachi Brewster, an abortion doula and sex and pleasure educator, who alternates living between England and Italy, says the biggest societal failure in supporting individuals who’ve had abortions is not teaching about them or having considerations that normalize the experience before someone finds themselves needing an abortion.

“When I’m supporting someone, I always ask, ‘when did you first learn about abortion?’ because that often gives them an idea about where their ideas about abortion came from—and how they think about their abortion,” she says, noting the political context in which we frame abortion often prevents the space for care.

Had we had that conversation when I was pregnant at 17, I’d say television, because my primary source of public health and social education, neglected the topic. For that reason, the end of my pregnancy marked the gestation of 10 years of shame and fear of stigma.

While roughly one in four individuals capable of being pregnant have an abortion by 45, many are left to process the experience alone. In a world full of abortion stigma, we find many ways of asking, “who loves and supports the individuals who have had abortions?” And now, as the world tries to make sense of the enactment of Texas’ devastating SB 8 abortion law that bans abortion after six weeks, we’re reminded that individuals seeking abortions need even more support.  Abortion advocates say challenging stigma, listening, and demonstrating unconditional kindness are vital to showing that love.

Challenging Stigma and the Oversimplification of Abortion 

“The truth is that abortion stigma exists everywhere. Even in countries where abortion is incredibly accessible, people still face stigma, shame, and isolation. This shows that even in these countries, there’s the element of care and support that is missing,” says Camila Ochoa Mendoza, a reproductive justice researcher in Gothenburg, Sweden, and the producer of the podcast Abortion, with love .  

Ochoa Mendoza leaned into abortion support after witnessing the loving sense of community at an International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma (inroads) gathering. She realized she could make an impact by normalizing talking about abortion and leading those conversations with joy, respect, and love. 

Her podcast was born of a central question: “What would happen if we stopped dedicating our time and energy trying to convince people that we are worthy of love and care and instead shift our attention inwards, to our community, to the people who have abortions, and ensuring that they are taken care of?”  

Racial discrimination, the prison and immigration industrial complexes, and wage disparities create barriers to individuals’ ability to raise families in nurturing communities.

Ochoa Mendoza says that too often individuals are left to process the scrutiny of their reproductive choices—especially with abortion—as the public lacks consideration for how patterns of oppression and inequality inform these choices. Instead, she says, we adapt “simplistic narratives” to discuss abortion that label us to the benefit of political parties and to the detriment of the people seeking abortion services.  

Reproductive Justice activists have long highlighted the failure of the anti-abortion rights/pro-abortion rights binary. Anti-abortion rights conservatives often deprioritize the personhood of pregnant individuals and deny the importance of reproductive equity, often co-opting the language of the civil rights movement. The pro-abortion rights perspective prioritizes legal access but overlooks how a history of racialized reproductive oppression through forced sterilization and family separation adds nuance to individuals’ reproductive decisions. Still, mainstream conversations on reproduction, specifically abortion, have only recently begun to challenge this language. 

Both movements articulate motherhood from a middle-class—and often White—perspective that alienates low-income, queer, and BIPOC individuals through an emphasis on the legal system. Neither address how racial discrimination, the prison and immigration industrial complexes, and wage disparities create barriers to individuals’ ability to raise families in nurturing communities. Those same barriers block abortion access—and care. 

Through her podcast, Ochoa Mendoza aims to create space to honor all experiences of abortion and to celebrate those working to make the world a safer place for abortion seekers.

Personalizing Support

“When you’re trying to get an abortion, there’s so much energy focused on the physical, there’s no space to think about the emotional,” says Brewster, who believes individuals can “hold multiple truths” while processing their abortion experience. Through her work, she has found that most people just need someone to talk to. 

“That is so simple, but it is hugely impactful when you feel that you have a space where you can go and tell someone your story, where you feel seen, where you feel supported, where you know that person [won’t] judge them,” Brewster says.

While an abortion might be an empowering “act of self-love” for some, she believes each individual deserves support that is anchored in community and one’s individual needs based on their circumstance. Brewster’s organization, DOPO , is a gender-inclusive, community-oriented resource for abortion support-seekers and support-providers that meets people where they are in processing their abortion experience.  

Like Ochoa Mendoza, Brewster suggests “choice” can be inaccurate to describe individuals’ efforts to provide for themselves, and often their existing families, amid many forms of structural inequality. Instead, she frames her advocacy under a model of providing and receiving care in community.  

“It would be wonderful if people had time to seek support from someone who could support from the moment you’re considering an abortion right through. But because of the politics and the pressure, many people come to me after. “

When seeking an abortion, one of the most significant types of pressure is time. Infamous “heartbeat bills” like the one in Texas—where I had my first abortion—intersect with financial, travel, and employment barriers forcing individuals, especially those who are marginalized and low-income, to expedite the decision-making process. 

Kindness Through Logistical Support

Gina Martinez, co-founder and organizer of the Colorado Doula Project , notes that even people who consider themselves pro-choice uphold narratives that “crisis” in life circumstance or fetal anomaly is the only legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy.

“I think a lot of people feel like they need to justify why they’re having an abortion, and that kind of stigma and lack of acceptance isolates people,” says Martinez, who experienced a related yet different stigma while unmarried and pregnant with her daughter at 22. She realized that both choices—embracing parenthood or terminating the pregnancy—came with judgment.

The lack of support for pregnant people can leave them vulnerable to crisis pregnancy centers , which are receiving an increasing amount of local government funds . “Crisis pregnancy centers receive federal funding… yet study after study shows that CPCs routinely provide misleading and inaccurate medical information,” says Katelyn Bryant-Comstock of IntraHealth International in Chapel Hill, in a 2019 interview with Reuters. The Colorado Doula Project supports individuals with the logistical aspects of abortion.

Martinez realized that people seeking abortions were severely underserved and often needed non-monetary forms of support, like transportation or someone to temporarily handle the process of grocery shopping or providing meals.  They address the needs that, when left unaddressed, can push individuals towards crisis pregnancy centers.  

In addition to funding abortions up to 24 weeks and providing transportation, Martinez says, CDP mails preventative resources like condoms, emergency contraceptives, pregnancy tests, prenatal vitamins, and post-abortion care packages for free.    

“Every single one of those people, what they need is kindness. That’s one of the most simple and radical things that you can do,” she says. 

Like Ochoa Mendoza and Brewster, Martinez speaks of challenging our own perspectives around abortion as an integral part of supporting others. Each one emphasized understanding abortion more holistically, going beyond the political binary narrative, and deepening that understanding through an equity lens.

When supporting individuals seeking abortion health care or supporting those who are processing their experience small act can make a big difference. Looking for ways to get involved?

Highlight and share first-hand accounts in abortion storytelling efforts, such as WeTestify . Consider signing up for abortion doula trainings like those hosted through DOPO, or fund it for someone else. Use the directory through The National Network Of Abortions Funds to find the folks doing the work near you. If you don’t have the funds to contribute, you can always support with your time. 

But whatever you do, don’t be silent, because, in the words of Renee Bracey Sherman, everyone loves someone who has had an abortion.

Inspiration in Your Inbox

Sign up to receive email updates from YES!

Reproductive Freedom Depends on Where You Live. How Does Your City Rank?

The Women Ministers of Kentucky Preaching Abortion Rights

What Reproductive Rights Advocates Can Learn From Texas (Yes, Texas)

Why We’re Seeing More Realistic Depictions of Abortion in TV and Film

Inspiration in your inbox..

Abortion is Our Right, and We Won’t Be Silenced

If you thought anti-abortion extremists were going to stop at banning abortion, punishing pregnant people, and allowing bounty hunters to sue abortion providers, you’d be wrong. Politicians across the country have proposed bills taking aim at our right to discuss abortion care, to express the benefits of being able to determine if and when to become pregnant, and even to create art about reproductive health care. They’re continuing their attacks on our reproductive freedom by going after our right to free speech and our access to life-saving information. This isn’t just about taking away people’s decisions during pregnancy; politicians are trying to erase our health care needs, our stories and experiences, and our existence.

Bills in Iowa and Texas were recently introduced that force internet providers to block websites that give information about abortion and allow anyone to sue an internet provider who fails to block those websites. In order to avoid the risk of lawsuits, internet service providers — which may even include places that supply internet access like colleges and libraries — would be forced to block any website that discusses abortion, including those of abortion funds working around the clock to make sure pregnant people know their options for accessing abortion and where they may need to travel. The Texas law even targets specific websites that would have to be blocked, some of which are simply sites to get educational information about abortion pills and their safety. Anti-abortion extremists are clearly aiming to ensure people who need abortions in their state can’t even learn about their options.

At the same time as states are trying to shut down access to information about abortion, public colleges are responding to legislative attacks from extremist politicians by curtailing free speech and artistic expression — even going beyond the bounds of the law out of fear they may face political punishment. Last summer, for example, Indiana University told faculty that they had committed a policy violation by writing a letter in support of a colleague and opposing a proposed abortion ban in the legislature.

More recently, Lewis-Clark State College announced that it would pull several artists pieces addressing abortion from an upcoming exhibition, “Unconditional Care,” for fear of violating the state’s No Public Funds for Abortion Act. A far cry from providing unconditional care to its community, the college is censoring work that gives voice to a range of topics that are often heavily stigmatized and rarely spoken about.

An Idaho College Censored Their Reproductive Health Care Art, But These Artists Won’t be Silenced

Three artists whose work was removed from an exhibit at Lewis-Clark State College speak out about attempts to silence stories about abortion.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

We know that freedom of speech, artistic expression, and reproductive freedom go hand in hand. We must be allowed to talk about our experiences and exchange information about our health care in order to truly make decisions about our bodies and our families free from political interference. We cannot allow extremist politicians to get in between us and the information we need, or to tell us what we can and can’t say — online or off.

The ACLU is fighting in courts and state legislatures across the country to stop bills like these (and many more), but we need you to stand with us. Whether you live in a state where politicians are taking away your free speech and abortion rights or not, you can make a difference in this fight. Join the ACLU in fighting back against attacks on abortion access and other civil liberties across the country by signing up for information and ways to take action below.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• Reproductive Freedom
• Free Speech

Related Content

Florida Supreme Court Allows State to Ban Abortion, But Sends Measure to Protect Abortion Rights to the Voters in November

Ohio Abortion Providers File Lawsuit Challenging 24-Hour Waiting Period and Other Abortion Restrictions

Preterm-Cleveland, et al, v. Dave Yost, et al.

ACLU Brief in Emergency Abortion Care Case Highlights Idaho Politicians' Deeply Flawed Legal Arguments

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Free Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you about to write a persuasive essay on abortion but wondering how to begin?

Writing an effective persuasive essay on the topic of abortion can be a difficult task for many students. 

It is important to understand both sides of the issue and form an argument based on facts and logical reasoning. This requires research and understanding, which takes time and effort.

In this blog, we will provide you with some easy steps to craft a persuasive essay about abortion that is compelling and convincing. Moreover, we have included some example essays and interesting facts to read and get inspired by. 

So let's start!

• 1. How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?
• 2. Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples
• 3. Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion
• 4. Abortion Persuasive Essay Topics
• 5. Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?

Abortion is a controversial topic, with people having differing points of view and opinions on the matter. There are those who oppose abortion, while some people endorse pro-choice arguments. 

It is also an emotionally charged subject, so you need to be extra careful when crafting your persuasive essay .

Before you start writing your persuasive essay, you need to understand the following steps.

Step 1: Choose Your Position

The first step to writing a persuasive essay on abortion is to decide your position. Do you support the practice or are you against it? You need to make sure that you have a clear opinion before you begin writing. 

Once you have decided, research and find evidence that supports your position. This will help strengthen your argument. 

Check out the video below to get more insights into this topic:

Step 2: Choose Your Audience

The next step is to decide who your audience will be. Will you write for pro-life or pro-choice individuals? Or both? 

Knowing who you are writing for will guide your writing and help you include the most relevant facts and information.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Step 3: Define Your Argument

Now that you have chosen your position and audience, it is time to craft your argument. 

Start by defining what you believe and why, making sure to use evidence to support your claims. You also need to consider the opposing arguments and come up with counter arguments. This helps make your essay more balanced and convincing.

Step 4: Format Your Essay

Once you have the argument ready, it is time to craft your persuasive essay. Follow a standard format for the essay, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. 

Make sure that each paragraph is organized and flows smoothly. Use clear and concise language, getting straight to the point.

Step 5: Proofread and Edit

The last step in writing your persuasive essay is to make sure that you proofread and edit it carefully. Look for spelling, grammar, punctuation, or factual errors and correct them. This will help make your essay more professional and convincing.

These are the steps you need to follow when writing a persuasive essay on abortion. It is a good idea to read some examples before you start so you can know how they should be written.

Continue reading to find helpful examples.

Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples

To help you get started, here are some example persuasive essays on abortion that may be useful for your own paper.

Short Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Persuasive Essay About No To Abortion

What Is Abortion? - Essay Example

Persuasive Speech on Abortion

Legal Abortion Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Persuasive Essay about legalizing abortion

You can also read m ore persuasive essay examples to imp rove your persuasive skills.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents both sides of an argument. These essays rely heavily on logic and evidence.

Here are some examples of argumentative essay with introduction, body and conclusion that you can use as a reference in writing your own argumentative essay. 

Abortion Persuasive Essay Introduction

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Conclusion

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Pdf

Argumentative Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Argumentative Essay About Abortion - Introduction

Abortion Persuasive Essay Topics

If you are looking for some topics to write your persuasive essay on abortion, here are some examples:

• Should abortion be legal in the United States?
• Is it ethical to perform abortions, considering its pros and cons?
• What should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions?
• Is there a connection between abortion and psychological trauma?
• What are the ethical implications of abortion on demand?
• How has the debate over abortion changed over time?
• Should there be legal restrictions on late-term abortions?
• Does gender play a role in how people view abortion rights?
• Is it possible to reduce poverty and unwanted pregnancies through better sex education?
• How is the anti-abortion point of view affected by religious beliefs and values? 

These are just some of the potential topics that you can use for your persuasive essay on abortion. Think carefully about the topic you want to write about and make sure it is something that interests you. 

Check out m ore persuasive essay topics that will help you explore other things that you can write about!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

Here are some facts about abortion that will help you formulate better arguments.

• According to the Guttmacher Institute , 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion.
• The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
• Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with less than a 0.5% risk of major complications.
• In the United States, 14 states have laws that restrict or ban most forms of abortion after 20 weeks gestation.
• Seven out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
• In places where abortion is illegal, more women die during childbirth and due to complications resulting from pregnancy.
• A majority of pregnant women who opt for abortions do so for financial and social reasons.
• According to estimates, 56 million abortions occur annually.

In conclusion, these are some of the examples, steps, and topics that you can use to write a persuasive essay. Make sure to do your research thoroughly and back up your arguments with evidence. This will make your essay more professional and convincing. 

Need the services of a professional essay writing service ? We've got your back!

MyPerfectWords.com is a persuasive essay writing service that provides help to students in the form of professionally written essays. Our persuasive essay writer can craft quality persuasive essays on any topic, including abortion. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What should i talk about in an essay about abortion.

When writing an essay about abortion, it is important to cover all the aspects of the subject. This includes discussing both sides of the argument, providing facts and evidence to support your claims, and exploring potential solutions.

What is a good argument for abortion?

A good argument for abortion could be that it is a woman’s choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It is also important to consider the potential risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Home — Blog — Topic Ideas — 50 Abortion Essay Topics: Researching Abortion-Related Subjects

50 Abortion Essay Topics: Researching Abortion-Related Subjects

Abortion remains a contentious social and political issue, with deeply held beliefs and strong emotions shaping the debate. It is a topic that has been at the forefront of public discourse for decades, sparking heated arguments and evoking a range of perspectives from individuals, organizations, and governments worldwide.

The complexity of abortion stems from its intersection with fundamental human rights, ethical principles, and societal norms. It raises questions about the sanctity of life, individual autonomy, gender equality, and public health, making it a challenging yet critically important subject to explore and analyze.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the significance of choosing the right abortion essay topics and abortion title ideas , offering valuable insights and practical advice for students navigating this challenging yet rewarding endeavor. By understanding the multifaceted nature of abortion and its far-reaching implications, students can make informed decisions about their topic selection, setting themselves up for success in producing well-researched, insightful, and impactful essays.

Choosing the Right Abortion Essay Topic

For students who are tasked with writing an essay on abortion, choosing the right topic is essential. A well-chosen topic can be the difference between a well-researched, insightful, and impactful piece of writing and a superficial, uninspired, and forgettable one.

This guide delves into the significance of selecting the right abortion essay topic, providing valuable insights for students embarking on this challenging yet rewarding endeavor. By understanding the multifaceted nature of abortion and its far-reaching implications, students can identify topics that align with their interests, research capabilities, and the overall objectives of their essays.

Abortion remains a contentious social and political issue, with deeply held beliefs and strong emotions shaping the debate on abortion topics . It is a topic that has been at the forefront of public discourse for decades, sparking heated arguments and evoking a range of perspectives from individuals, organizations, and governments worldwide.

List of Abortion Argumentative Essay Topics

Abortion argumentative essay topics typically revolve around the ethical, legal, and societal aspects of this controversial issue. These topics often involve debates and discussions, requiring students to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and persuasive language.

• The Bodily Autonomy vs. Fetal Rights Debate: A Balancing Act
• Exploring Abortion Rights: An Argumentative Analysis
• Gender Equality and Reproductive Freedom in the Abortion Debate
• Considering Abortion as a Human Right
• The Impact of Abortion Stigma on Women's Mental Health
• Abortion: A Controversial Issue
• Persuasive Speech Outline on Abortion
• Laughing Matters: Satire and the Abortion Debate
• Abortion Is Bad
• Discussion on Whether Abortion is a Crime
• Abortion Restrictions and Women's Economic Opportunity
• Government Intervention in Abortion Regulation
• Religion, Morality, and Abortion Attitudes
• Parental Notification and Consent Laws
• A Persuasive Paper on the Issue of Abortion

Ethical Considerations: Abortion raises profound ethical questions about the sanctity of life, personhood, and individual choice. Students can explore these ethical dilemmas by examining the moral implications of abortion, the rights of the unborn, and the role of personal conscience in decision-making.

Legal Aspects: The legal landscape surrounding abortion is constantly evolving, with varying regulations and restrictions across different jurisdictions. Students can delve into the legal aspects of abortion by analyzing the impact of laws and policies on access, safety, and the well-being of women.

Societal Impact: Abortion has a significant impact on society, influencing public health, gender equality, and social justice. Students can explore the societal implications of abortion by examining its impact on maternal health, reproductive rights, and the lives of marginalized communities.

Effective Abortion Topics for Research Paper

Research papers on abortion demand a more in-depth and comprehensive approach, requiring students to delve into historical, medical, and international perspectives on this multifaceted issue.

Medical Perspectives: The medical aspects of abortion encompass a wide range of topics, from advancements in abortion procedures to the health and safety of women undergoing the procedure. Students can explore medical perspectives by examining the evolution of abortion techniques, the impact of medical interventions on maternal health, and the role of healthcare providers in the abortion debate.

Historical Analysis: Abortion has a long and complex history, with changing attitudes, practices, and laws across different eras. Students can engage in historical analysis by examining the evolution of abortion practices in ancient civilizations, tracing the legal developments surrounding abortion, and exploring the shifting social attitudes towards abortion throughout history.

International Comparisons: Abortion laws and regulations vary widely across different countries, leading to diverse experiences and outcomes. Students can make international comparisons by examining abortion access and restrictions in different regions, analyzing the impact of varying legal frameworks on women's health and rights, and identifying best practices in abortion policies.

List of Abortion Research Paper Topics

• The Socioeconomic Factors and Racial Disparities Shaping Abortion Access
• Ethical and Social Implications of Emerging Abortion Technologies
• Abortion Stigma and Women's Mental Health
• Telemedicine and Abortion Access in Rural Areas
• International Human Rights and Abortion Access
• Reproductive Justice and Other Social Justice Issues
• Men's Role in Abortion Decision-Making
• Abortion Restrictions and Social Disparities
• Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Abortion Access
• Alternative Approaches to Abortion Regulation
• Political Ideology and Abortion Policy Debates
• Public Health Campaigns for Informed Abortion Decisions
• Abortion Services in Conflict-Affected Areas
• Healthcare Providers and Medical Ethics of Abortion
• International Cooperation on Abortion Policies

By exploring these topics and subtopics for abortion essays , students can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of the abortion debate and choose a specific focus that aligns with their interests and research objectives.

Choosing Abortion Research Paper Topics

When selecting research paper topics on abortion, it is essential to consider factors such as research feasibility, availability of credible sources, and the potential for original contributions.

Abortion is a complex and multifaceted issue that intersects with various aspects of society and individual lives. By broadening the scope of abortion-related topics, students can explore a wider range of perspectives and insights.

• Abortion Social Issue
• Exploring the Complexity of Abortion: Historical, Medical and Personal Perspectives
• Abortion: A Comprehensive Research
• An Examination of Abortion and its Health Implications on Women
• Abortion Introduction
• Comparative Analysis of Abortion Laws Worldwide
• Historical Evolution of Abortion Rights and Practices
• Impact of Abortion on Public Health and Maternal Mortality
• Abortion Funding and Access to Reproductive Healthcare
• Role of Misinformation and Myths in Abortion Debates
• International Perspectives on Abortion and Reproductive Freedom
• Abortion and the UN Sustainable Development Goals
• Abortion and Gender Equality in the Global Context
• Abortion and Human Rights: A Legal and Ethical Analysis
• Religious and Cultural Influences on Abortion Perceptions
• Abortion and Social Justice: Addressing Disparities and Marginalization
• Anti-abortion and Pro-choice Movements: Comparative Analysis and Impact
• Impact of Technological Advancements on Abortion Procedures and Access
• Ethical Considerations of New Abortion Technologies and Surrogacy
• Role of Advocacy and Activism in Shaping Abortion Policy and Practice
• Measuring the Effectiveness of Abortion Policy Interventions

Navigating the complex landscape of abortion-related topics can be a daunting task, but it also offers an opportunity for students to delve into a range of compelling issues and perspectives. By choosing the right topic, students can produce well-researched, insightful, and impactful essays that contribute to the ongoing dialogue on this important subject.

The 50 abortion essay ideas presented in this guide provide a starting point for exploring the intricacies of abortion and its far-reaching implications. Whether students are interested in argumentative essays that engage in ethical, legal, or societal debates or research papers that delve into medical, historical, or international perspectives, this collection offers a wealth of potential topics to ignite their curiosity and challenge their thinking.

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Why Freedom of Speech Is the Next Abortion Fight

A legal battle in Mississippi will test whether states can criminalize those who merely provide information.

I n the middle of July, three big blue billboards went up in and around Jackson, Mississippi. Pregnant? You still have a choice , they informed passing motorists, inviting them to visit Mayday.Health to learn more. Anybody who did landed on a website that provides information about at-home abortion pills and ways to get them delivered anywhere in the United States—including parts of the country, such as Mississippi, where abortions are now illegal under most circumstances.

A few days ago, the founders of the nonprofit that paid for the billboard ads, Mayday Health , received a subpoena from the office of the attorney general of Mississippi. (The state has already been at the center of recent debates about abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade , upheld a Mississippi statute by allowing states to put strict limits on abortion.) The subpoena, which I have seen , demands a trove of documents about Mayday Health and its activities. It may be the first step in an effort to force Mayday Health to take down the billboards, or even to prosecute the organization’s leaders for aiding and abetting criminal conduct.

Mayday Health is not backing down. This week, it is taking out a television ad on Mississippi channels and putting up 20 additional billboards. This makes the legal fight over the Jackson billboards a crucial test in two interrelated conflicts about abortion that are still coming into public view.

Read: The abortion-rights message that some activists hate

The first is that the availability of abortion pills, which are very safe and effective during the first three months of pregnancy, has transformed the stakes of the abortion fight . The pro-life movement has hoped that states’ new powers to shut down abortion providers will radically reduce the number of abortions around the country. The pro-choice movement has feared that the end of Roe will lead to a resurgence of back-alley abortions that seriously threaten women’s health.

Yet the changes wrought by the recent Supreme Court ruling may turn out to be more contained than meets the eye: Legal restrictions on first-trimester abortions have become much harder to enforce because a simple pill can now be used to induce a miscarriage. Abortion by medication is widely available in large parts of the country; as Mayday Health points out on its website, even women who are residents in states where doctors cannot prescribe such pills can set up a temporary forwarding address and obtain them by mail.

The second brewing conflict is about limits on free speech. So long as abortions required an in-person medical procedure, the pro-life movement could hope to reduce them by shutting down local clinics offering the service. Now that comparatively cheap and convenient workarounds exist for most cases, effective curbs on abortion require the extra step of preventing people from finding out about these alternatives. That is putting many members of the pro-life movement, be they Mississippi’s attorney general or Republican legislators in several states who are trying to pass draconian restrictions on information and advice about abortions, on a collision course with the First Amendment.

S ome limits on speech are reasonable. States do, for example, have a legitimate interest in banning advertisements for illegal drugs. If a cocaine dealer took out a billboard advertising his wares, the government should obviously be able to take it down. Especially when it comes to commercial speech, some common-sense restrictions on what people can say or claim have always existed and are well-justified.

But the laws that Republicans are now introducing in state legislatures around the country go far beyond such narrow limits on objectionable commercial speech. In South Carolina, for example, Republican legislators have recently sponsored a bill that would criminalize “providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion.”

Read: The coming rise of abortion as a crime

This law—which is modeled on draft legislation that the National Right to Life Committee is trying to get passed in many states around the country—would seriously undermine the right to free speech. It could potentially make doctors in states where abortion is actually legal liable to prosecution for discussing their services with someone who calls them from a state where abortion is illegal. It could even outlaw basic forms of speech such as news stories containing information that might be used by someone seeking an abortion. Theoretically, even this article could fall under that proscription.

The subpoena issued by the office of Mississippi’s attorney general is objectionable for similar reasons. Mayday Health is not advertising a commercial product or service. The organization does not handle or distribute abortion pills. All it does is provide information. Although one could reasonably believe that the information Mayday Health is providing may be used to commit acts that are now illegal in some parts of the United States, a ban on informational speech that can be used for the purposes of lawbreaking would be unacceptably broad and vague. After all, would-be lawbreakers might also consult the blog posts of lawyers who explain how to object to an improper search of a vehicle or study the pages of a novel to figure out how to make a Molotov cocktail. Should the attorney or the novelist also be considered to have aided or abetted a crime?

Recent efforts to suppress speech about abortion would seriously undermine the nation’s ability to debate the topic openly and honestly. Anybody who believes in the importance of the First Amendment should oppose them. As Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has pointed out , “These proposals are a chilling attempt to stifle free speech … Whether you agree with abortion or not is irrelevant. You have the right to talk about it.”

I n recent years , the wider debate about free speech has undergone a strange transformation. Historically, the American left staunchly defended the First Amendment because it recognized the central part that free speech played in the struggles against slavery and segregation, and in the fight for the rights of women and sexual minorities. But as establishment institutions, including universities and corporations, became more progressive, and parts of the left came to feel that they had a significant share in institutional power, the absolute commitment to free speech waned.

Progressives started to find the idea of restrictions on free speech appealing because they assumed that those making decisions about what to allow and what to ban would share their views and values. Today, some on the extremist left endorse restrictions on free speech, demanding campus speech codes and measures to force social-media sites to “deplatform” controversial commentators and censor what they claim is “misinformation.”

Mary Ziegler: Why exceptions for the life of the mother have disappeared

The transformation of the left’s position on freedom of speech has allowed both principled conservatives and the less-than-principled protagonists of the MAGA movement to cast themselves as defenders of the First Amendment. In the mind of many people, the cause of free speech has astoundingly quickly shifted from being associated with left-wing organizations such as the ACLU to becoming the property of right-leaning pundits and politicians.

This makes the new front in the fight over abortion rights an important reminder of why the left should never abandon the cause of free speech. If the left gives up on the core commitment to free speech, what people can say is as likely to be determined by the attorney general of Mississippi as it is by college deans or tech workers. Curbs on free expression have always been a tool of governments that seek to control the lives of their citizens and punish those who defy them. The same remains true today.

• Admission help
• Custom essay help
• Writing assignment
• College essay
• Coursework writing
• Custom writing
• Dissertation writing
• Homework help
• Personal statement
• Proofreading
• School papers
• Speech writing
• Thesis help
• Lab report writing
• Ghostwriting
• Book report
• Book review
• Movie review
• Testimonials
• 1-929-999-5210 Copied!
• Write my essay

Persuasive Speech on Abortion

No matter, how we persuade ourselves, every woman that decides to put an end to her pregnancy understands that it is wrong. It couldn’t be another way, as our instinct tells us that it is absolutely unnatural to decide for another human being, whether they should live or die. Yes, they can come up with different excuses, but it in no case changes the sense of their action, the action that will cost life to their child .

It was scientifically proven that children in uterus start perceiving things very early. Their heart starts beating on the sixth week, and brain starts working at the same time. So, when an abortion is done , it is in fact the end of life of a human being who already can feel and think. If I were in such a situation, I just couldn’t have taken the responsibility for someone else’s life. I know that I am responsible for myself – I can, for instance, smoke, consume alcohol and spoil my own health in this way – it will be my choice, and indeed no one can make me stop it unless I want it to stop. But when we speak of unborn children – what kind of choice is this? This is not…

• Craft and Criticism
• Fiction and Poetry
• News and Culture
• Lit Hub Radio
• Reading Lists

• Literary Criticism
• Craft and Advice
• In Conversation
• On Translation
• Short Story
• From the Novel
• Bookstores and Libraries
• Film and TV
• Art and Photography
• Freeman’s
• The Virtual Book Channel
• Behind the Mic
• Beyond the Page
• The Cosmic Library
• The Critic and Her Publics
• Emergence Magazine
• Fiction/Non/Fiction
• First Draft: A Dialogue on Writing
• Future Fables
• The History of Literature
• I’m a Writer But
• Just the Right Book
• Lit Century
• The Literary Life with Mitchell Kaplan
• New Books Network
• Tor Presents: Voyage Into Genre
• Windham-Campbell Prizes Podcast
• Write-minded
• The Best of the Decade
• Best Reviewed Books
• BookMarks Daily Giveaway
• The Daily Thrill
• CrimeReads Daily Giveaway

What It Means to Anthologize the Literature of Abortion

Annie finch, editor of choice words: writers on abortion , in conversation with some contributors.

About twenty years ago, I had an abortion and discovered that literary writing exploring the experience was not easy to find. So I began editing an anthology of literature about this major, suppressed literary theme, a physical, psychological, moral, spiritual, political, and cultural reality that navigates questions of life and death.

It turned out to be a daunting job: there was great writing but much of it was forgotten and overlooked, hidden within longer works; other pieces were still unpublished, or even unwritten, to be coaxed from their authors by the anthology itself. I was considering abandoning the project when the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh brought it new urgency. I made it my top priority to complete the book at last, and it was published on the eve of the pandemic under the title Choice Words: Writers on Abortion .

With this week’s news that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the poetry, fiction, literary nonfiction, and drama gathered in this anthology—the first major collection of literature about abortion—are more urgent and timely than ever. Choice Words spans six centuries and five continents and includes work by Margaret Atwood, Gwendolyn Brooks, Lucille Clifton, Langston Hughes, Ruth Prawar Jhabvala, Ursula LeGuin, Audre Lorde, Joyce Carol Oates, Dorothy Parker, Anne Sexton, Ntozake Shange, Leslie Marmon Silko, Edith Sodergran, Amy Tan, Mo Yan, and many others.

For this discussion, I asked seven contemporary contributors to answer a few key questions: Judith Arcana, Josette Akresh-Gonzales, Desiree Cooper, Camonghne Felix, Kristen Ghodsee, Jenna Le, and Manisha Sharma.

Annie Finch : Please share, if you like, a brief passage from your contribution to the book and tell us about the greatest obstacle, internal or external, that you faced in writing your piece. What was the most important permission that you needed to give yourself?

Judith Arcana: “Every week we went to a meeting, but not like now. No one stood up and said, My name is Jane and I’m an abortionist. No. Because we didn’t want to stop, we weren’t trying not to do it. We sat in apartments, passing the cards.”

Because my work in the pre-Roe abortion underground was done in a group, whenever I write about what we did (as in those opening lines from “Women’s Liberation”—a poem that includes made-up names and fictionalized stories), I think about my responsibility to both the group and the people who came to us for abortions. Though I don’t think of responsibility as an obstacle, it demands conscious, deliberate attention—always—so it slows us down. And that’s a good thing. Such considerations are necessarily part of my process, and require the “permission” you are asking about.

Josette Akresh-Gonzales: The greatest internal obstacle that I faced in writing ”I Am Used to Keeping Secrets About My Body” was giving myself permission to write about another woman’s experience alongside my own. Although I know several women who have had abortions and know that no one could trace back the anecdote in this poem to a particular person, I worried that somehow, someone would recognize themselves in it and accuse me of using their difficult experience for my own gain (for my art).

The specifics were pretty specific but could apply to any number of women I’d worked with over the years: “that guy she’d hooked up with—who she thought she might marry, / who’d profiled on Indian Cupid as square-jawed but smart and steady,” yet I worried that either this very person I had worked with or someone close to her who knew both of us would take offense.

What gave me permission, in the end, to put this piece out into the world was the restrictive laws being passed that would outlaw abortion after x number of weeks—it didn’t seem likely that these lawmakers even understood that the number of weeks began on the first day of the last period a woman had before she got pregnant. There seemed to me to be many other aspects of women’s bodily experience—women’s biology—that people don’t talk about and therefore should not be legislating. I personally had felt secretive about my periods, about my postpartum body, about yeast infections, and so on. Putting that all together in one poem ended up being a revelation both to myself and, it turned out, to readers!

Desiree Cooper: The greatest obstacle for me was trying to communicate the profound breadth of the abortion experience among (American) women. There are so many financial, relational, emotional, physical and spiritual reasons that bring women to the decision to end a pregnancy and there was no way to universalize abortion care without telling all the stories. So, I chose first person plural, “we,” to convey the feeling that women as a group were testifying.

The morning that we read the stick, some of us buckled on the bathroom floor. Having only bled once, we thought it was impossible. Having bled forever, she shook our graying heads and thought, “This is no miracle.”

Camonghne Felix: The greatest obstacle was in finding validity in the context around my abortion and the social and personal events that drove to it, versus the abortion itself. So much of how we discuss abortion, especially those of us who consider themselves abortion activists, concerns the procedure, the politics of the procedure, and the medical barriers that people who need abortions face.

But, as someone who believes fundamentally that I have a right to abortion, that abortions are necessary and critical to reproductive health, it felt less important to write a poem that exemplified that belief, and more important to consider the context of my decision, and the sociopolitical and personal factors that brought me to the decision.

Kristen Ghodsee: This is a weird question in the context of my piece, because my short story reflects on the absolute ordinariness of abortion in Eastern Europe. The story is based on a real experience I had in Bulgaria in the 1990s. I was meeting a woman at a café and when she was late, she explained that among her morning errands and the awful traffic she’d had an abortion. She just dropped in casually in the conversation. And I have often been shocked when my students from the former republics of the Soviet Union talk about going to get their abortions with their grandmothers as if it’s the most normal thing in the world.

There is no trauma and no regret about abortion in that culture, and I think that Western audiences are rarely exposed to this perspective. I think this paragraph captures this view well:

As Svetozara explained that not all of the women in parliament supported the domestic violence legislation because they feared it would make women seem like victims, I wondered what my reproductive life would have been like if I’d been raised in a country where a women’s right to control her own body hadn’t been seriously challenged in decades. Where going to an abortion clinic didn’t mean risking your life to get inside. Maybe having multiple abortions is actually better than pumping yourself full of hormones for decades. I didn’t know, but that day I realized that for women born in most Eastern European countries, the medical removal of a fertilized egg was no more traumatic or shameful than the pharmaceutical prevention of the egg’s fertilization in the first place.

Jenna Le: As I was trying to decide which of my life experiences to draw upon in writing my poem, I was struck by how many facets of a young woman’s life are touched by anxieties about sex, pregnancy, abortion access, and abortion stigma. The issue is omnipresent and influences so many aspects of how we live, think and feel, how we learn to relate to others. It shades our existences so diffusely that seeing the full extent of the impact it has had on my life was challenging at first, an obstacle in itself.

In my poem, I wanted to delve into some of the more remote psychologic consequences of our societal stigma on abortion, to explore how our societal silence around abortion strips young people of their decision-making agency: “So, when it was my turn, I sank into my fear. / I let the boy, my fear, and chance do all the choosing.”

Manisha Sharma:

On my right: white tray on a white table. Foggy forceps, scissors that grow bold and big then shrink like raisins I soak every night for your father. Everything is a blank, an erased memory.

Abortion is not the same everywhere. What I refer to in my poem is called sex-selective abortion, a term that itself adds to ambiguity. It refers to abortion when the fetus is the undesired female sex. Son preference is responsible for 400,000 abortions a year in India alone. Though a broad generalization, there is no doubt that most of these abortions are forced. Forced because of cultural expectations for a male heir. Forced because of economic pressures. Forced because of societal pressures. Forced because of family expectations.

It is through precise, vivid details that the experience becomes real as if it is happening with my own body. I am acutely aware of the paradox of emotions that hit me as I wrote these lines, imagining what millions of women in my country and outside have gone through. I know it’s not me, but I am also aware that I have an objective distance to the experience which only helps me tell it and make it universal.

When sex-selective abortions can shake gender balance to the point of no repair in the second most populous country in the world, it is imperative for the entire world to pay attention to find solutions to this abuse of an innovative technology. Today entire states in India are living with a scarcity of girls, adding to social crimes and much more.

AF: What surprises you the most about the experience of being part of this book?

JA: I was not expecting the breadth of attitudes/opinions/stories represented here. I’m impressed by that range, happy about it—yes, happy—thinking about people who will read this book and learn about the complexity of abortion, the depth of decisions that’re often simplified by the word choice (as if someone were deciding between green and yellow paint for the walls of a hallway, between chocolate and caramel filling for cupcakes).

JAG: For my first publication as part of an anthology, I am amazed and happy to be included with such huge names as Sharon Olds, Amy Tan, Gloria Steinem, and of course Annie Finch (the amazing editor of this book), and so many others. I was impressed with the breadth and depth of the book—its organization (mind, body, heart, will, spirit) was so satisfying a way to approach this topic.

I am excited to meet some of the other writers in the book’s pages as I feel I’ve gotten to know them a bit from reading their pieces, which say a certain something about them I already know I’ll like. I enjoy being in the company of these stories, essays, and poems, as I feel at home in their pages. I admire Annie Finch for engendering the idea for this book and making it happen. I know it took many years and a lot of effort; that persistence should not be overlooked.

DC: I’ve been a feminist and a supporter of reproductive rights for my entire adult life. I had an abortion in college, the shame of which has never quite evaporated. I worked for Planned Parenthood of Michigan for five years. Yet, I am continuously amazed at how the vast majority of people are supportive of reproductive choice (to some degree), many people are quiet advocates, and many, many more have had abortions. Being a part of this book has been a wonderful opportunity to re-engage with the “normality” of something that continues to be relegated to the shadows.

CF: I guess it surprises me just how many poems are distinctly and specifically about abortion.

KG: Since I am an ethnographer, I mostly write either academic books or in the field of what is called “creative nonfiction.” When Annie asked me to write a short story for the collection, it was definitely a little bit out of my comfort zone. Although I have written some ethnographic fiction in the past, this story challenged me because I wanted to convey a lot of information in a very short piece. I guess what surprises me most is being included in a volume with so many amazing poets and fiction writers, since this is not usually where my work appears.

JL: I am ever surprised by how relevant this book continues to be, how this already-centuries-long conversation between foremothers and daughters continues echoing into the present and into the future.

MS: Everything, but most of what I admire about the book is the expansive view of abortion that it takes.

AF: Please discuss another piece from the book besides your own, preferably from a writer of an earlier generation, for which you feel kinship or appreciation.

JA: Reading Mary Wollstonecraft’s piece, an excerpt from Maria: Or, The Wrongs of Women , written in the 18th century, I feel both kinship and appreciation. I admire Wollstonecraft’s willingness to write about abortion within its cultural context, emphasizing class and misogyny. Her determination to tell the truth is a model for those of us who make art with words and want to use that art for what are, essentially, political reasons.

JAG: I appreciate so many pieces in this anthology that it is hard to choose one in particular, but if pressed I would say “The End,” by Sharon Olds. It grips me from start to finish, and as is usual in her work, uses visceral imagery, concrete wording, and an admirable willingness to tell it like it is. In both my poem and hers, in fact, the link between normal women’s bodily experience and abortion is made clear, but there is a sense of judgment, perhaps internalized from the culture at large.

Her ending, appropriately so, shocks the reader to realize how necessary, how wanted this abortion was, with her bringing up of a celebration, a “feast” that, when it’s over, needs to be cleaned up. This metaphorical licking of the lips at the end of the poem should not be shocking, but it is, in our world, such an unspoken thing to actually celebrate an abortion, all the blood and guts of it, that it does shock me that she just said it, put it in a poem, celebrated it.

DC: How to choose between the pieces? I really appreciated pieces like the poem “Haint” by Teri Cross Davis which expresses the common fear that women will be punished/cursed with infertility or miscarriages in the future because they had an abortion in the past. The trauma of the shame can haunt women for a lifetime. Conversely, I remember gasping out loud when I read this passage from “Sorry I’m Late,” by Kristen Ghodsee. It’s about an American woman interviewing a Bulgarian woman about some legislation.

“Sorry I’m late,” she said to me in the perfect English of a young professional who had earned a master’s degree in the UK. “I had an abortion this morning and had to run some errand, and then my tram didn’t show up and I had to take a taxi.”

Oh, to imagine a world where an abortion merely shows up on a normal “to-do” list. It blew my mind.

CF: Grateful to all of these writers and all of these pieces for their continued reflection on abortion and on the evolution of the conversations on abortion. All of their works take us one step further in the conversation towards equity.

KG: I enjoyed Soniah Kamal’s interviews with high school students from Pakistan where pre-marital sex is punishable by a five-year prison term, and so abortion is an absolute necessity for young women. Although I very much enjoyed the fiction and poetry in the collection, I think the power of this contribution, “The Scarlet A,” lies in its veracity. There is so much shame associated with sexuality in this culture, and these compelling first person accounts give the reader a unique window into the politics of abortion in a non-Western society, which I appreciated.

JL: I keep returning to Julie Kane’s sonnet “Tunnel of Light,” how the chilly grace of its formal beauty is counterbalanced by its blazing honesty and vulnerability. Contemplating the possibility of someday reuniting with “My mother wait[ing] there in her spider web” and “My little lost infant wait[ing] in her crib,” the speaker incants, “O holy mother, help us to forgive / those who killed us and those who let us live.” In our lives, there are so many directions in which hurt can flow, but there are just as many directions in which healing and help and forgiveness and permission can flow also.

MS: Amy Tan’s excerpt from her novel The Kitchen God’s Wife affects me in a million ways every time I read it. It gradually weaves in multiple layers of characters and meanings, one by one, and makes this complex thing, a simple one, one that the reader can peel off, the layers of interpretation and be surprised every time they read.

Multiple themes reside in this short excerpt. There’s gender. The superiority of the male against the female. There’s class too. An outward impression that as a rich female you are better off than a poor servant girl. You have more agency, but a fear of the unknown creeps into the wealthy woman and flips what she thought so confidently about. She wanted her husband to pay for impregnating a servant girl at first, but she took a shortcut because she heard voices in her head about what people would say.

Ultimately the servant girl kills herself, and the narrator blames it on her husband, who preys upon their own six-month-old daughter, and the wife must give in. The wife gives in because she wants peace in the family. The wife takes it to keep things going and cuts the husband loose. The story is rich, complex, real, and vivid. I try to do similar things in my work too, to simplify a complex issue and make it a universal experience.

AF: Until this book, literature about abortion was almost invisible as a literary theme/mode (except for the poems by Brooks and Clifton and some rather sensationalist works by white male writers). Now that this book exists, what kind of writing would you like to see as the next wave of abortion literature? What advice would you give to other writers who want to write about abortion?

JA: I have no thoughts about a “kind of writing” I’d like to see, and I’ve long been committed to not giving advice (perhaps even more now, as an elder, because I get asked for advice more often). However, because I’m happy about the thoughtful analyses and engaging narratives offered in Choice Words (in so many different ways, with so many different attitudes), I can suggest that those “other writers” read this book.

JAG: The advice I would give myself—a writer who would like to write more poems about abortion—is to let go of expectations, of worrying about what others might think, and write some heartfelt protest poems about what it might mean to go back to a time where abortion is illegal. It’s a scary thought. I think we need as a society to process that scary thought and really explore it. If a fetus is a person, is my IUD murder? How far back to conception does that ethical line go?

I read a story a few years ago (speculative) that envisioned an America where women had to pay for a funeral for each menstrual period. In my mind, I can imagine a life where I got pregnant accidentally, having already had two kids, and would need to make a decision about what to do. After reading so many amazing pieces in Choice Words, I actually feel way more empowered to write down these thoughts and feelings than I did before. I hope many many other writers feel the same way.

DC: I’d like to see a day come when we are free of “acceptable” moral reasons for abortion, and only personal and medical decisions guide access. Perhaps that will only come when physicians, midwives and abortion doulas tell more of their stories as well.

CF: I want to see work that normalizes abortion; I want to see work that shows an evolved understanding of how gender and abortion rights interact; I want trans people writing about abortion; and I want to decenter femaleness as the identifier for abortion need.

KG: I think more international writing would be wonderful, especially from authors in the Global South. I also think there should be more voices from Eastern Europe and Eurasia as their experiences are very different from those in the West. Abortion was first legalized on demand in the Soviet Union in 1920, and many Soviet women had multiple abortions over the course of their lives.

In terms of my advice, I think there is too often a focus on trauma and regret in a lot of writing about abortion, and while I understand that this is the authentic experience for manypeople, I do worry that it perpetuates the stigma associated with the practice.

JL: I would just like to see more and more and more! There are so many voices in so many diverse communities that have heretofore been silenced and pushed to the margins when it comes to this issue. I would love to see more of these underrepresented voices be widely heard and granted their share of space in our common awareness and community conversation.

MS: I don’t think we can want to see a particular type of abortion writing. Our experiences shape our writing, and it is better kept that way. The element of surprise must never leave the writer. My advice to future writers would be to just keep at it. Keep expressing what you have to go through, and one day you will be surprised by what you unload on that page.

_______________________________

Choice Words: Writers on Abortion , is available now from Haymarket Books *

Judith Arcana writes poems, stories, essays, and books—including Grace Paley’s Life Stories, a Literary/Political Biography ; Announcements from the Planetarium , a recent poetry collection; and, coming soon, Hello. This Is Jane is a collection of linked fictional stories seeded by Judith’s pre-Roe underground abortion work in Chicago. juditharcana.com

Josette Akresh-Gonzales was a finalist in the 2017 Split Lip Chapbook Con- test and has been Pushcart nominated; her poems are in The Pinch , Breakwater , [PANK] Magazine , and elsewhere. She lives in the Boston area with her husband and two boys and bikes to work at a nonprofit medical publisher. @Vivakresh

Desiree Cooper is a 2015 Kresge Artist Fellow, Pulitzer Prize–nominated journalist, and the award-winning author of the flash-fiction collection Know the Mother . Her short film based upon “The Choice” won awards at the Berlin Flash Film Festival, and the Los Angeles Best Short Film Festival. She resides in coastal Virginia.

Camonghne Felix is a poet, political strategist, media junkie, and cultural worker. Her debut full-length collection of poems, Build Yourself a Boat (Haymarket Books, 2019), is longlisted for the National Book Award.

Annie Finch  is a poet, writer, teacher, and performer. Her books include  Spells: New and Selected Poems ,  Calendars ,  A Poet’s Craft , and a book-length poem about abortion entitled  Among the Goddesses: An Epic Libretto in Seven Dreams . Her abortion healing ritual, and subscriptions to Annie’s Spellsletter, are available at  anniefinch.net

Kristen R. Ghodsee is an award-winning author, ethnographer, and professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She has written nine books, and her articles have been translated into over a dozen languages and published in Foreign Affairs , Dissent , New Republic , Washington Post , and New York Times .

Jenna Le authored Six Rivers (NYQ Books, 2011) and A History of the Cetacean American Diaspora (Indolent Books, 2018), which won second place in the Elgin Awards. She was selected by Marilyn Nelson as winner of Poetry by the Sea’s inaugural sonnet competition. Her poetry appears in Los Angeles Review , Massachusetts Review , and West Branch . jennalewriting.com

Manisha Sharma , an Indian, writes across genres about social issues. Her work is a 2019 semifinalist for the American Short(er) Fiction Contest. An AWP mentee in poetry, she has been a resident at the Vermont Studio Center and Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference. She is a lecturer of English and teacher of yoga-meditation at New River Community College in Virginia.

Literary Hub

Previous article, next article.

• RSS - Posts

Created by Grove Atlantic and Electric Literature

Sign Up For Our Newsletters

How to Pitch Lit Hub

Advertisers: Contact Us

Privacy Policy

Support Lit Hub - Become A Member

Become a Lit Hub Supporting Member : Because Books Matter

For the past decade, Literary Hub has brought you the best of the book world for free—no paywall. But our future relies on you. In return for a donation, you’ll get an ad-free reading experience , exclusive editors’ picks, book giveaways, and our coveted Joan Didion Lit Hub tote bag . Most importantly, you’ll keep independent book coverage alive and thriving on the internet.

Become a member for as low as $5/month

Find anything you save across the site in your account

A High School Teen’s Powerful Graduation Speech About Abortion Rights Is Going Viral

By Christopher Rosa

Paxton Smith, the 2021 valedictorian of Lake Highlands High School in Dallas, gave an impassioned graduation speech about abortion rights that's going viral. 

For those unfamiliar with what's happening in Texas: The state's governor, Greg Abbott, just signed into law the “heartbeat bill,” which, per The Texas Tribune , bans abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when most women don't even realize they're expecting. 

Smith had originally planned to talk about television and media during her speech but instead used the platform to shed light on the “heartbeat bill.” 

“In light of recent events, it feels wrong to talk about anything but what is currently affecting me and millions of other women in this state,” Smith said, per Vox . “Starting in September, there will be a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Six weeks. That’s all women get.”

According to Vox, the “heartbeat bill” not only bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy but allows people to sue anyone who “aids and abets” one of these illegal procedures. 

Smith's speech has exploded on TikTok, racking up more than 210,000 views. It was reposted to Twitter, where it's been viewed more than 2 million times. “In Texas, Lake Highlands High School valedictorian, Paxton Smith, switched out her approved speech to talk about abortion rights,” the tweet reads. 

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

According to Advocate magazine, a local Highlands publication, Smith's decision to change her speech on the fly was not supported by her school district. “The content of each student speaker’s message is the private, voluntary expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the District or its employees,” RISD school board president Karen Clardy said. “What the student did was unexpected and not supported by LHHS or RISD. We are going to review student speech protocols in advance of next year’s graduations to prevent something like this from happening again.”

That being said, Smith's father, Russell, fully supported her actions. “It was something that she felt was important, and she had the nerve, determination, and boldness to put herself out there and say her piece,” he said, according to Advocate . “So few people demonstrate this level of maturity and poise, regardless of age.”

Read her full speech, according to Advocate magazine, below: 

As we leave high school we need to make our voices heard. I was going to get up here and talk to you about TV and content and media because those are things that are very important to me. However, in light of recent events, it feels wrong to talk about anything but what is currently affecting me and millions of other women in this state.

Recently the heartbeat bill was passed in Texas. Starting in September, there will be a ban on abortions that take place after six weeks of pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. Six weeks. Most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant by then. And so, before they have the time to decide if they are emotionally, physically, and financially stable enough to carry out a full-term pregnancy, before they have the chance to decide if they can take on the responsibility of bringing another human into the world, the decision has been made for them by a stranger. A decision that will affect the rest of their lives.

I have dreams, hopes, and ambitions. Every girl here does. We have spent our whole lives working towards our futures, and without our consent or input, our control over our futures has been stripped away from us. I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail me, that if I’m raped, then my hopes and efforts and dreams for myself will no longer be relevant. I hope you can feel how gut-wrenching it is, how dehumanizing it is, to have the autonomy over your own body taken from you.

And I’m talking about this today, on a day as important as this, on a day honoring the students’ efforts in 12 years of schooling, on a day where we’re all brought together, on a day where you will be the most inclined to hear a voice like mine, a woman’s voice, to tell you that this is a problem. A problem that can’t wait. I refuse to give up this platform to promote complacency and peace, when there is a war on my body and a war on my rights. A war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your mothers, a war on the rights of your daughters.

By Sam Reed

By Harriet Johnston

By Fiona Embleton

We cannot stay silent.

By Talia Abbas

By Elizabeth Logan

By Astro All-Starz

About  Search

Nikki Haley

Remarks delivering a policy speech on abortion in arlington, virginia.

Thank you, Marjorie. And thank you to the Susan B. Anthony List for its tireless work on behalf of innocent children and moms.

My subject today is the conversation around abortion. It's a sensitive topic that deserves our attention. It's one that too many politicians either demagogue or hide from. I won't demagogue or hide from it.

I'm here to speak about it directly and openly. I won't address every possible question or angle. Rather, I aim to start a constructive conversation about where we go from here in our divided country.

Abortion is a deeply personal topic for both women and men. I understand why. Someone's body and someone else's life are not things to be taken lightly, and they should not be politicized. The issue should be addressed with sensitivity and respect, not judgment and hate.

Most people have a story that has brought them to their views about abortion. It could be a personal experience. It could be a trauma that a family member or friend endured. It could be a moral conviction. It could be our concerns for our daughters and their future.

This is my story.

I am pro-life. I am unapologetic and unhesitant about it. Not because the Republican Party tells me to be. But for very personal reasons.

My husband was adopted, and I am reminded of that blessing every day.

Michael's birth parents lived in poverty. His father was an alcoholic and in and out of prison. His mother suffered a traumatic brain injury.

When he was just a few years old, Michael and his siblings were taken from their home. Later, they were put in foster care. It was a rough experience for him.

Thankfully, when he was four, a loving family adopted Michael and his younger sister. It changed their lives. Adoption literally saved them.

Every day is a blessing because someone gave him life. Every day is a blessing because a family loved and raised him under difficult circumstances. The world is better because of Michael Haley. He's an amazing father and husband. He's a combat veteran who served our country in war. He continues to help adoption and at-risk youth causes because he wants to help others who were born in his situation.

I often think about what would have happened if Michael hadn't been so blessed … if his biological mother had chosen a different path.

My husband is reason number one that I stand for life. Every day I get to spend with the love of my life reminds me that I am blessed that someone saved his life.

The second reason is that Michael and I struggled to have children of our own.

I had many challenges as a teenager into my college years. I went through numerous surgeries. When Michael and I were married, I couldn't wait to be a mom. But what happened so easily for many of my friends was not my path. We went through countless sessions of fertility treatments.

Every day I wake up and see or speak to my two children I feel blessed. The greatest job I will ever have is being their mom.

Our eldest got married just ten days ago. I will never forget the day she was born and then seeing her walk down the wedding aisle with her dad. I felt what countless parents feel. Love. Pride. Overpowering joy.

I believe every life is a blessing from God. My heart hurts when someone decides not to go through with a pregnancy.

My record on abortion is long and clear.

As a state legislator, I voted for every pro-life bill that came before me.

We made it easier for women to get ultrasounds.

We required a 24-hour wait before abortions.

As Governor, we passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, protecting babies born during botched abortions.

I signed a law protecting unborn babies from the moment they can feel pain.

We also launched initiatives that paired thousands of vulnerable first-time moms with nurses who had specialized training in maternal and child health.

I kept up the fight as ambassador to the United Nations.

And I'm not done yet.

My goal as president will be the same as when I was Governor and Ambassador.

I want to save as many lives and help as many moms as possible.

This mission has become more urgent in the past year.

With the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, we entered a new era. It's really a return to the way this issue was decided in our country for nearly two centuries.

Until 1973, abortion was not a federal issue. Each state decided where it stood. Many had restrictive laws. Some had more permissive laws.

Yes, the issue was controversial, but the citizens of each state reached a consensus that reflected their values.

Then, in 1973, the Supreme Court changed that. It declared the entire nation must follow one standard. A standard determined not by the American people, but by unelected judges. And that standard was among the most liberal in the world.

Overnight, 46 states saw their abortion laws thrown out. State-level consensus was replaced with a national mandate that much of the country found deeply offensive.

Last year, the Court returned power to the American people. We are now free to forge consensus once again.

In the past year, we've started to see what that looks like.

Some states have passed laws protecting life. I commend them for it.

Other states have doubled down on abortion. I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

Different people in different places are taking different paths. That's what the founders of our country envisioned. It's the reality of living in a democracy.

But it's equally true that in a democracy, things can change. Tomorrow can be better than today. And I believe we will make even more progress in the cause of life.

That is the challenge we face as pro-life advocates – to move America toward life.

I said I want to save as many lives and help as many moms as possible. That is my goal. To do that at the federal level, the next president must find national consensus.

That might sound strange to many people.

Under Roe, consensus was replaced by demonization. And let's be honest: most in the media promote demonization. They stoke division pitting Americans against each other.

No one talks about finding consensus. Everyone goes to the barricades and attacks the other side.

They've turned a sensitive issue that has long divided people into a kind of gotcha bidding war.

How many weeks are you for? How many exceptions are you for? And so on. But these questions miss the point if the goal is saving as many lives as possible.

You don't save any lives if you can't enact your position into law. And you can't do that unless you find consensus.

Reaching consensus starts with humanizing, not demonizing. Just like I have my story, I respect everyone who has their story. I don't judge someone who is pro-choice any more than I want them to judge me for being pro-life.

Today, each state is finding its own consensus, as they should.

Nationally, however, the task is much harder. As a practical matter, you only achieve consensus when you have a House majority, a 60-vote Senate majority, and a president who are all in alignment.

We are nowhere close to reaching that point. Today, there are around 45 pro-life senators, depending on how you count them. There haven't been 60 Republican senators since 1910. It could happen one day. But it hasn't happened in over a hundred years, and it's unlikely to happen soon.

We have to face this reality. The pro-life laws that have passed in strongly Republican states will not be approved at the federal level.

That's just a fact, notwithstanding what the Democrat fearmongers say. They say Republicans are about to ban all abortions nationwide and send women to prison. These wildly false claims, amplified by a sympathetic media, are not designed to do anything other than score political points.

They know as well as anyone that no Republican president will have the ability to ban abortion nationwide, just as no Democratic president can override the laws of all fifty states. It's just not going to happen.

But that does not mean we can't save as many lives as possible.

I do believe there is a federal role on abortion. Whether we can save more lives nationally depends entirely on doing what no one has done to date – finding consensus. That's what I will strive to do.

In fact, I believe common ground already exists.

There is broad public agreement that babies born during a failed abortion deserve to live. They need medical care and the full protection of the law, just like every other baby.

There is broad public agreement that we should never pressure moms into having an abortion. They should get support to carry their baby to term. They should be able to get information from pregnancy resource centers – and especially about adoption.

We must do better when it comes to adoption, to make it easier for adoptive parents, and to avoid children growing up in a government system with too little love.

We can broadly agree that pro-life doctors and nurses should never be forced to violate their beliefs. The right of conscience matters just as much as the right to life.

Surely, we can all agree that abortion up until the time of birth is a bridge too far. Only seven countries on earth allow elective late-term abortions. We're talking brutal regimes like Communist China and North Korea.

We should be able to agree that contraception should be more available, not less.

And we can all agree that women who get abortions should not be jailed. A few have even called for the death penalty. That's the least pro-life position I can possibly imagine.

Those are just some areas where national consensus is already within reach. There are others too, and we should do the hard work to find them through heartfelt dialogue.

Sadly, finding consensus is the last thing on the mind of many of today's political and media class.

Conflict makes for good fundraising copy and scary TV ads. Consensus doesn't get a lot of ratings or clicks.

Hating and judging each other has become the norm instead of respecting one's personal story.

I would remind those on the Left who demonize anyone who is pro-life, that it was not too long ago when President Bill Clinton said he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare."

Few Democrats say "rare" anymore.

Just the opposite. Many want legal abortion anytime, for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, in every state and town in America.

Some radical activists are even lighting pregnancy resource centers on fire. These are not the voices of consensus. They are acts of division and hatred.

President Biden has done nothing to discourage it. In fact, he promotes it. That's not leadership. It's more partisanship of the worst kind.

Pro-life political leaders and candidates must not put up with being demonized. We should call out the extremism of the Left.

We don't need a president who endangers lives while dividing our country even more. We need a president who unites Americans and brings out the best in them, even on the toughest of subjects.

That will be my approach as president. I believe in conversation.

I believe in compassion.

I believe in empathy, not anger.

We're not just talking about policy here. We're talking about people.

That's often lost in this debate, on the left and the right. But it's front of mind for me.

I acknowledge the humanity of both the unborn baby and the pregnant mom.

I know how hard pregnancy can be.

Some days, you're so sick you can't get out of bed. You worry if you're really up for raising a baby. And you know you're going to need a lot of help.

That's what I felt during my pregnancies. Many women have it much harder. I desperately wanted a child. I had a loving family eager to help out. But some moms never wanted to be pregnant at all. Some are single with no one to help – with no idea how to raise a baby while keeping a job.

I had a friend who was raped. I know the anguish she went through worrying that she would have an unwanted pregnancy. It was an anguish I wouldn't wish on anyone.

We can't ignore the fears those women face.

I will never downplay these difficulties as I fight for life. And I won't demonize those who disagree with me.

We can't give into outrage culture and accuse our opponents of being evil. That's self- defeating.

If we want to protect more moms and save more babies, we need more Americans to join with us. We must persuade people and find consensus, not push them further away.

I know we can do it.

I've done it before.

Eight years ago, when I was governor, I encountered the most difficult challenge of my life.

A sick and twisted young man walked into Mother Emanuel Church, in Charleston. He joined a bible study of African Americans, sat and prayed with them for over an hour, then opened fire. He murdered nine amazing souls. He openly said he did it because of the color of their skin.

In the awful days that followed, photos emerged of the killer posing with the Confederate Flag. Amid our grief, a massive debate broke out. It centered on the Confederate Flag that flew on the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse.

Our state had been bitterly divided on the flag for decades. On one side were those who wanted to tear it down. On the other side were those who wanted to keep the flag. Both were united in sadness over the Mother Emanuel murders. But they were divided about what the flag meant, and what taking it down would mean.

The debate was intense. People wondered if South Carolina would break out in violence and destruction like what we had recently seen in Ferguson, Missouri and other places.

But we didn't.

In that fraught moment, I gave a speech. I said, quote:

"For many people in our state, the flag stands for traditions that are noble — traditions of history, of heritage and of ancestry… At the same time, for many others in South Carolina, the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past. As a state, we can survive, as we have done, while still being home to both of those viewpoints. We do not need to declare a winner and loser."

And so, I said, it was time to remove the Confederate Flag from the statehouse grounds.

This was no easy task. It was a highly emotional issue in our state. And removal required a two-thirds vote in both our State House and Senate.

But several days later, large, diverse, and bipartisan majorities in our state legislature voted to bring down the flag.

We found consensus on a very tough issue. Republicans and Democrats worked together and made progress by talking to each other like human beings. We saw past our differences, and united to move forward, as one state and one people.

What was true then, with the flag, can be true now, with abortion.

This shouldn't be about one movement winning, and another one losing.

This shouldn't be about picking sides, scoring points, or stoking outrage.

It's about saving babies and supporting moms.

I am fighting for all of them, and I will work with anyone to do that.

I have faith we can make progress. I have faith we can save more lives, and give every baby, mother, and family the best shot at the best life.

Our national history should give us hope.

Time and again, the American people have confronted great wrongs, and worked hard to convince their fellow citizens to make them right.

Think back to the abolitionists. They spent the better part of a century striving to end our original sin of slavery.

Think back to the suffragettes. It took them even longer to secure the support of their fellow citizens for women's right to vote.

Think back to the leaders of the civil rights movement. Their tireless work showed America that segregation was wrong, and equality was right.

Think about the progress we're already making in the restoration of the right to life. Fifty years ago, a court forced unlimited abortion on an unwilling nation.

Millions of Americans responded – not with rage, but with resolve.

They reminded our fellow citizens about the humanity of the unborn child and the needs of pregnant mothers.

Now that power has been restored to the people. Let us treat it as the important and deeply personal issue it is. Let's discuss it in ways that allow Americans to show love for one another, not judgment or contempt. And let's find a consensus that allows us to save as many babies as we can while supporting women in difficult situations.

I am ready for the hard work that lies ahead. And I'm confident we can move together, toward our founding promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America.

Nikki Haley, Remarks Delivering a Policy Speech on Abortion in Arlington, Virginia Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/360587

Filed Under

Simple Search of Our Archives

Report a typo.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Editorial Board

The Persistent Threat to Abortion Rights

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values . It is separate from the newsroom.

The Supreme Court this week heard the first major challenge to abortion rights since it struck down Roe v. Wade two years ago — an attempt to severely limit access to mifepristone, the most commonly used abortion pill in the country, by a group of doctors who are morally opposed to the practice.

The justices seem prepared to throw out the lawsuit. During oral arguments, they questioned whether the doctors had suffered the harm necessary to bring the suit in the first place.

But that should come as small comfort to anyone concerned for the future of reproductive freedom in America. Judges at the state and federal levels are ready to further restrict reproductive options and health care access. The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, has indicated support for a 15-week national abortion ban. And while the Supreme Court, in overturning Roe, ostensibly left it to each state to decide abortion policy, several states have gone against the will of their voters on abortion or tried to block ballot measures that would protect abortion rights. Anti-abortion forces may have had a tough week in the Supreme Court, but they remain focused on playing and winning a longer game.

Even potential victories for reproductive freedom may prove short-lived: The mifepristone case, for instance, is far from dead. Another plaintiff could bring the same case and have it considered on the merits, a possibility Justice Samuel Alito raised during oral arguments.

“Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the F.D.A. did here?” he asked the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar. Such a challenge would be exceptionally weak, given that the F.D.A. provided substantial support for its approval and regulatory guidance on the use of mifepristone, but the right-wing justices on the Roberts court may be willing to hear it again anyway. The justices have already illustrated their hostility to the authority of administrative agencies, and that hostility may persist even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Then there is the Comstock Act, a 151-year-old federal law that anti-abortion activists are trying to revive to block the mailing of mifepristone and other abortion medication. During the oral arguments this week, Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas repeatedly expressed their openness to the use of the law, which was pushed by an anti-vice crusader decades before women won the right to vote. If anti-abortion activists can get themselves before a sympathetic court and secure a national injunction on this medication being mailed, they may well be able to block access to abortion throughout the country, including in states where it is legal.

However the mifepristone case turns out, the threats to reproductive rights the justices unleashed by overturning Roe go much further.

The anti-abortion movement is pursuing its aims on many legal fronts. One focus of intense activity is so-called fetal-personhood laws , which endow fetuses (and, in some cases, even fertilized eggs) with the same legal rights as living, breathing human beings. Last month, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization were to be protected as “extrauterine children,” relying in part on an 1872 state law. That sent lawmakers in Alabama scrambling to protect a procedure that is highly popular among Republicans and Democrats alike. Three weeks after the court ruling, they passed a law protecting patients and doctors who perform I.V.F. procedures from legal liability.

Fetal-personhood laws can also be used to target access to birth control, embryonic stem cell research and even women who suffer miscarriages.

In eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to choose what happens in her own body, the Supreme Court claimed to be respecting the democratic process by allowing state legislatures to determine whether abortion should be legal and what, if any, limits should be placed on it. Roe v. Wade had been “egregiously wrong” to wrest a fraught public debate from the American public, Justice Alito wrote in the majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022. It was “time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Instead of being settled at the state level, less than two years since the Dobbs ruling, the issue of abortion has returned to the court and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The Dobbs ruling has forced a new public debate on abortion and galvanized Americans’ support for it, which has been strong for decades. Since 1975, a majority of Americans have supported legal abortion in some or all cases, according to polling by Gallup , and that support has increased slightly since Dobbs. The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be illegal in all cases has gone down.

Since Roe was overturned in 2022, in every state where reproductive rights have been on the ballot, from Vermont to Kentucky, the abortion rights side has won . This past Tuesday, the same day that the court heard the mifepristone case, voters in Alabama elected to the state legislature a Democrat who ran on a platform of protecting access to abortion and I.V.F. The candidate, Marilyn Lands, lost her race in 2022 by seven points; she won this week by 25 points.

There are limits to the state-by-state approach when it comes to protecting bodily autonomy. Some states don’t allow ballot initiatives of the type that have led to abortion rights victories elsewhere. In Ohio and other states, lawmakers have sought to block or overturn attempts by voters to protect abortion rights, and anti-abortion lawmakers in several states have sought to prosecute anyone who helps a woman travel to another state to get an abortion.

In short, there is no silver bullet for reproductive rights. The judiciary is no haven, not as long as the current Supreme Court majority holds; state and lower federal courts aren’t much better, going by the Alabama I.V.F. ruling and the decisions that pushed the mifepristone case to the Supreme Court. At the same time, voter support for reproductive rights won’t make a difference if they can’t use ballot measures to make that support known.

That is why any successful strategy to protect or restore abortion rights must understand reproductive rights and representative democracy as inextricably linked.

That means understanding the stakes of the elections in November. If Mr. Trump’s party wins solid control of the House and Senate, this could put Americans’ reproductive rights at further risk, especially if Republicans first decide to do away with the filibuster. That would lower the threshold for passing legislation such as a 15-week abortion ban , which Mr. Trump seems likely to support .

Voters will be faced with a stark choice: the choice of whether to protect not just reproductive rights but true equality for women.

Source photograph by Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Will abortion advocates continue their winning streak? Here's which states will be key.

Activists battling to protect abortion rights have found their arena of choice: the voting booth.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, reversing the landmark case that guaranteed the right to an abortion on the national level, abortion rights have been largely debated and decided on a state level.

And while several states across the country have restricted or banned the procedure, advocates trying to expand abortion access have still been successful, passing state constitutional amendments to enshrine abortion access even in places like ruby red Ohio and conservative Kansas.  

This year, citizen initiatives to put abortion rights on the ballot are ongoing in at least a dozen states, including Florida and Arizona, and could put the issue in front of millions of voters come November. 

A victory for reproductive rights: Democratic candidate Marilyn Lands wins Alabama special election

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

These initiatives may also carry implications for races up and down the ballot. Democrats are looking for an electoral boost from the debate, similar to the victories the party racked up in the 2022 midterms after campaigning on abortion rights.

Here’s the latest on the efforts and what both sides are saying about the possible amendments. 

Florida efforts near finish line

Florida voters could know by the end of this week whether they will see a question on abortion rights on their ballot this fall.  

The state’s Supreme Court heard arguments early February against the proposed amendment, which would guarantee abortion access in Florida through viability – typically 24 weeks of pregnancy and previously the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade.

Abortion back at SCOTUS: How the Supreme Court case on the abortion drug mifepristone could affect 2024 election

The court has until Monday, April 1, to issue a ruling. Anna Hochkammer, executive director of Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, one of many groups behind the state’s abortion initiative, said she expects a decision to either come down Thursday morning – when the court typically publishes their decisions – or for the clock to run out and effectively put the amendment on the ballot after all.  

“This is D-Day,” Hochkammer said. “I mean this is what we started working for on June 1 last year. And it's the last step to get to the top of Mount Everest.” 

Currently, abortion is legal in Florida up to 15 weeks and could drop to 6 weeks, once a new state law goes into effect.  

The initiative’s success so far reflects Floridians’ more "middle of the road” views on the issue, Hochkammer said. 

“I think a lot of people out there thought that Florida wasn't going to make it ... And we ended up lapping the field,” she said. 

Needing just under 900,000 petition signatures, the group ultimately collected almost a million.  

Arizona advocates on track to get a vote

Arizona proponents are also looking to enshrine abortion access to the point of viability in their state constitution.  

Arizona for Abortion Access, the group behind the initiative, is still in the process of collecting signatures but say they are on track to make their early July deadline. The petition needs just under 400,000 signatures, and as of their latest update in mid-January, supporters had already gathered 250,000. 

The group is aiming to collect double that requirement, though, as “padding” for anticipated challenges, said Dawn Penich, communications director for the ballot initiative. 

“There will absolutely be lawsuits, there always are,” Penich said. “So we've been prepared for that all along. And it's not a worry.” 

The lawsuits are expected to begin, Penich said, once signatures are done being collected and the petition then goes through a statewide validation process. Opponents will likely target allegations from the legitimacy of the signatures to the methods by which they were collected, she said.

Can abortion advocates continue a "long line" of victories?

Proponents in both Florida and Arizona told USA TODAY they’re confident going into November.  

And they have precedent to back that – constitutional amendments for abortion access have won handily in every state they have appeared in so far. 

“People simply don't have a lot of tolerance for government meddling around inside their doctor's offices and inside their emergency rooms,” Hochkammer of Florida said. 

Flipping seats in 2024: This Democratic group is taking the fight over abortion rights to state legislatures

In Arizona, Penich said she expects her state to join the “long line of abortion access wins.” 

“Here in Arizona, we have an ethos that crosses party lines, about doing what's right for yourself, politicians not having too much say over what you get to do,” she said. 

That mentality extends to independents and Republicans in the state, as well, Penich said, something she witnessed firsthand while collecting signatures at a public event. 

"One gentleman came over to the volunteer with the clipboard and said, 'You know, I don't agree with abortion, but I don't like the government telling me what to do with my guns, I don't like the government telling me what shots to put in my body, and the government shouldn't be telling you ladies what to do, either.' And that's just like such an Arizona conversation,” she said. 

But opposition groups in Arizona are hoping to break that national win streak and told USA TODAY theirs is the state to do that. 

“Arizona is not Ohio. Arizonans can think for themselves,” said Olivia Escobedo, political director and spokeswoman for It Goes Too Far, an organization dedicated to defeating this proposed amendment. 

Escobedo was referencing an amendment to the Ohio constitution enshrining abortion through viability, which voters there passed last November by double digits.

She argues that a similar proposal goes beyond what most Arizonans want.

“The majority of voters do not support what this amendment is. They support significant limits on abortion,” Escobedo said. 

Along with removing what she said are critical safeguards for women, Escobedo’s group argues that the amendment would allow for abortions past that viability point, via provided exceptions, including mental health of the mother.

She said It Goes Too Far will continue to fight the amendment through the petition and verification process. 

Other states eye abortion measures in 2024

Florida and Arizona are among a handful of states with ongoing efforts to put an abortion amendment on November’s ballot. 

As of February, initiatives were underway in 11 other states, according to KFF , an independent health research organization. 

These are: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.

Abortion rights advocates have also faced competing initiatives in Colorado and Missouri, as opponents try to get their own anti-abortion measures up for a vote through the same citizen's initiative process.

Anti-abortion activists in Colorado have proposed the Colorado Life Initiative, which would ban all abortion procedures with no exceptions.

Republicans in Missouri also proposed a counter abortion measure, looking to enshrine the limit at 12 weeks rather than the viability point of roughly 24. Proponents for the more moderate proposal ended their campaign last month, though, leaving just one amendment on the table.

While advocates will likely not get abortion rights on the ballot in all 13 states this year, they're heading into November confident about growing their list of victories.

“There's a tipping point at which it gets too extreme," Hochkammer said of some states' current legislation. "Even people who wouldn't necessarily consider themselves abortion access supporters find extreme abortion bans to be troublesome and unacceptable.” 

“Abortion wins every time," she said.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Supreme Court seems doubtful of challenge to abortion pill

Nina Totenberg

Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 16, 2022. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption

Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 16, 2022.

A majority of the Supreme Court's justices, both conservative and liberal, did not seem inclined to block the FDA's existing rules for prescribing and dispensing the abortion pill mifepristone .

The case is widely seen as a threat not just to the increased accessibility of abortion pills, but to the FDA's entire structure of regulating pharmaceuticals.

More than half the women in this country who choose to terminate a pregnancy use a combination of pills approved by the FDA, one of which is mifepristone, marketed by Danco Laboratories as Mifeprex.

A Supreme Court abortion pill case with potential consequences for every other drug

The FDA first approved the pill regimen 24 years ago , and over the last eight years, the agency has eliminated some restrictions that it found to be unnecessary. For instance, the pills can now be prescribed during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, instead of the original seven weeks, and prescriptions can be filled by mail or at pharmacies, instead of, as before, only at a doctor's office.

Who has standing?

A group of anti-abortion doctors called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine challenged the FDA's decisions providing for increased accessibility. But in the Supreme Court Tuesday, the justices focused less on the FDA's actions and more on whether the anti-abortion group had legal standing to be in court at all.

Shots - Health News

Here's what really happened during the abortion drug's approval 23 years ago.

To have standing to sue, the group would have to show that its members had suffered a concrete harm, even though they don't prescribe mifepristone.

Lawyer Erin Hawley, representing the anti-abortion group, contended that particularly at hospitals, doctors opposed to abortion might well be drafted into finishing incomplete abortions. But she was unable to cite any example of that happening.

Instead, she pointed to affidavits filed by two Alliance doctors, examples that Justice Amy Coney Barrett found unpersuasive. " The fact that she performed a D&C does not necessarily mean that there was a living embryo or a fetus because you can have a D&C after a miscarriage," she said, referring to the procedure known as dilation and curettage.

Barrett, a mother of seven, who herself suffered miscarriages, wasn't the only justice to ask medical questions. Indeed, all four of the female justices asked detailed questions that likely would not have been asked at the Supreme Court prior to the appointment of the first woman in 1981.

Among the questions were inquiries about ultrasound tests and why they are not required prior to getting the pill and about the FDA's findings that prescriptions after telemedicine or phone appointments produced no uptick in emergency room visits.

Criticism of a lower court order

Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether there is a conscience exception that protects doctors from being required to perform abortions.

"Just to confirm on the standing issue, under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist an abortion, correct?" Kavanaugh asked.

"Yes," confirmed Prelogar.

Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to this case as typical of what he called "a rash" of recent orders from individual federal judges, orders that apply nationwide — in this case, the original decision from federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas sought to bar the abortion pill entirely.

Gorsuch referred to the decision as "a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action."

There was, of course, in Tuesday's case, a larger question, which got short shrift. And Justice Samuel Alito, author of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade , seemed to despair that his colleagues did not seem interested in using this case to directly address the powers of the FDA.

"Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the FDA did here?" he asked. "Do you think the FDA is infallible?"

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about what she called "the flip side of that question. Which is, do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge ... do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?"

Yes, replied Danco lawyer Jessica Ellsworth, pointing to the first decision in this case from Judge Kacsmaryk — a decision which she said "relied in part on an analysis of anonymous blog posts," as well as studies that were subsequently withdrawn as flawed by the journals that had printed them.

• abortion pill
• mifepristone
• Supreme Court

Breaking News

ASK THE AUTHOR

Purposes and consequences: a conversation with justice stephen breyer.

With the publication of his latest book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, retired Justice Stephen Breyer talks with Ibrain Hernández about the moments that have marked his career, as well as his perspective on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy and his focus on purpose and consequences when interpreting the law. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Ibrain Hernández is a law student at Center for Economic Research and Teaching, a public university in Mexico City. He is also the host of Upstanders, a podcast dedicated to analyzing the judiciary in constitutional democracies.

Who were your role models when you were studying law, and did any of them inspire you to become a justice?

Becoming a justice is just a matter of luck. One can prepare to be the most qualified lawyer for the position, but the truth is that you depend on being nominated by someone else and I believe that each and every member of the Supreme Court understands that.

Now, in terms of people who had an influence on my life and that I admire, I would mention Arthur Golberg, who was also a U.S. Supreme Court justice. I clerked for him in 1964 and I consider him to be a very enthusiastic person, he would tell us not to worry if we lost a case and stayed on the minority side because in the next case we wouldn’t be in the minority. Justice Golberg’s favorite quote was from Shakespeare and it said that “The time is short; to spend that shortness basely were too long.” In other words, life is too short and you have to do something productive.

Another person I admire is Archie Cox, with whom I worked in the Watergate Prosecution Office. I was very young at the time, but I remember Cox was a very honest person and beyond elevating his career, he wanted to investigate President Nixon and find out what had really happened. I mean, I was able to learn about the importance of being a lawyer who acts honestly.

I also admire Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom I worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He taught me that the best way to get something done to improve the world is by listening and talking to people who disagree with you. I like to advise students not to complain and to reach out to people with whom they disagree to listen to their perspectives because, eventually, they can find common ground and from that they can begin to dialogue and reach agreements.

Your answer reflects the trajectory you have had over the years. What has been your favorite job?

Early in my career, I was interested in administrative law and antitrust. But my favorite job was being counsel to the Judiciary Committee under Senator Kennedy because it was so much fun and interesting at the same time. Senator Kennedy taught me the importance of having a team of people with different skills and backgrounds working collectively to help others. I love jurisdictional work, but I think the legislative branch and the judicial branch work under different time periods.

You have mentioned that becoming a Supreme Court justice is like being struck by lightning twice.

We are talking about a nomination by the presidency and a confirmation by the Senate. Unfortunately, today more than ever, the nomination process has become a political issue; although that ends once you become a justice.

For a long time, you were the junior Supreme Court justice. What challenges did that entail?

Let us remember that we are nine justices and each one represents only one vote. We met privately and had unwritten rules, for example, no one could speak twice unless we had all spoken at least once. I think that was fair because it allowed the junior justice to express his opinion and be heard. Another advantage was that the meetings were private, and we could say what we really thought. Also, we had time to reflect and listen to what others thought. I think it was easier to make decisions because we listened to each other and identified where we could contribute collectively.

One thing I admire about you is your ability to engage in cordial conversations with people who have opposing views. Why is it important to have this perspective and what do you seek to convey by having these kinds of discussions?

The job of justice means to serve our nation through arguments and everything operates better when we are respectful of others. We all maintained a cordial relationship, I never heard anyone yelling angrily or anyone making fun of anyone else. It was a professional, friendly relationship that worked that way most of the time. There have been periods in the history of the Supreme Court when the justices did not get along and expressed it in public, but I think that is not a good idea because everything works better when you try to reach an agreement and listen to each other’s ideas.

You have written about the legitimacy of the judiciary and have reflected on the importance of having a system that allows for the nomination and confirmation of judges. Currently, in Mexico we are debating the possibility of electing judges.

Alexander Hamilton believed that we should give judges the final word on the meaning of the Constitution because, on the one hand, the president would say that everything he does is constitutional. On the other hand, members of the legislature are experts on popularity. That is, if they did not know about popularity, they would not have been elected and so they would decide what is constitutional based on what the majority wants. The point is that the Constitution protects both the most popular person and the least popular person. We are all equal before the law.

Hamilton said that judges should have the final say because they do not depend on money and cannot be bribed, and they do not have an army. Going back to ancient Rome, when a leader did not have the money or the army, the only way they could persuade people to do something was through a good system. No institution is perfect, but for example, there are states in my country where local judges are elected democratically and there are questions about how they should campaign and receive contributions. What if they have to decide a case in which the people involved are their supporters? How can we guarantee impartiality? There are other systems in which bar associations nominate candidates and there are many other models, but I think it is not a good idea to have a system in which judges are elected.

Going back to the issue of legitimacy, you have written about the reasons why citizens obey Supreme Court rulings, even when they disagree with them. Why should judges be interested in this? Isn’t it difficult for judges to know what citizens think when they are so far removed from most of the public?

To a large extent it is difficult, but we can read the newspapers, watch the news, and be informed about the history of the court.

A few years ago, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana sought me out because she was trying to implement civil rights in her country and asked me why people in the United States obey court rulings. I explained to her that it is a matter of habit and has developed over many years.

The rule of law means that people will obey the laws, even when they disagree with them. They may be right or wrong, but there is a process to change and improve them. We can watch the news and see perfectly well what happens when there is no rule of law. If we want to convince people to follow the rule of law and court rulings, we must explain to them how the system works. The job of lawyers is to explain to citizens the importance of having the rule of law and that the best thing to do is to obey the law, even when there are rulings with which they disagree.

Why write another book when you are already retired?

I believe that it is not enough to stick to originalism, that is, to read the text and know the meaning of the words at the time the Constitution was enacted. I believe in pragmatism, which consists of analyzing the purposes, the consequences, the history, and other aspects. I wanted to write this book because many professors have written books on theory and one can read a lot of theory, but one thing they don’t have is the experience I have as a judge. What I try to do in this book is to give examples about laws, about parts of the constitution, and explain cases in which different judges voted in different ways and the reasons why we voted that way. From that, readers will be able to take a position and I hope they will agree with me, but that will depend on their judgment. I want to make very clear what I have learned over 40 years of experience making decisions as a judge.

One of the major themes of the book is your analysis of pragmatism. Why should judges take into account the purposes and consequences of the laws they interpret?

Let us remember that the Supreme Court justices interpret laws in very complicated cases in which lower courts have different conclusions on the same question. If judges reach different conclusions, it is because we are dealing with very ambiguous laws. The first thing judges should do is to read the text and if it is not clear, they should look for clues in the law and in the discussions that the legislators had at the time of enacting the law. Then, they must take into account the consequences of interpreting the law in a certain way in the real world.

It is very important to take these aspects into account and try to have an outcome that furthers the purposes that the legislators had in enacting the laws. At the end of the day, they were democratically elected and are trying to do what is best for the country. The job of judges is to find answers when the laws are ambiguous.

What would be your advice to students who have not yet found their vocation?

After working at the Department of Justice and clerking at the Supreme Court, I thought about going into academia and met with Bayless Manning, the Dean of Stanford Law School, and he told me that it is important to make decisions about our career path, but the reality is that we never know more than 5% or 10% of what we need to know to make the best decision. Manning advised me not to try to walk a tightrope and to make a decision that would make me happy, because only then would my life fall into place properly. Some days will be terrible and some days will be amazing, but that’s part of life and the best we can do is strive to move forward. 

My recommendation for law students is to prepare themselves, do their best and learn the virtues of working in the private and public sectors. You don’t have to work forever in one sector and each experience will enrich you and prepare you for the next step on your journey.

Posted in Featured , Book reviews/Ask the author

Recommended Citation: Ibrain Hernández Rangel, Purposes and consequences: A conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer , SCOTUSblog (Apr. 5, 2024, 1:57 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/purposes-and-consequences-a-conversation-with-justice-stephen-breyer/

Privacy Overview

Commentary | Steve Chapman: The grave threats to abortion…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Clarence Page

Commentary | Steve Chapman: The grave threats to abortion rights are sparking a backlash

There was a time when you had to really pay attention to know when Democrats were talking about abortion. They avoided the word as if it were a live grenade. Instead, they extolled the importance of the “right to choose” or “a woman’s choice,” leaving the object of the choice deliberately vague.

As with explosives, the fear was of being blown up — in this case, at the polls. Republicans were more than happy to use the word to motivate their voters, vowing to outlaw “abortion on demand,” “abortion as birth control” and “partial-birth abortion.” They did their best to coat the term in slime.

But things have changed. Nowadays, Democrats are not reticent about what they are defending. And Republicans are not quite so forthright.

“A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to ban abortion across the country,” said Julie Chavez Rodriguez , Joe Biden’s campaign manager. Vice President Kamala Harris warned that “if Donald Trump has his way, he’ll gut abortion care in every state across the country.” In January, Gov. J.B. Pritzker took part in a discussion sponsored by the Chicago Abortion Fund and declared that “abortion access is health care.”

Many Republicans suddenly prefer to talk about anything else.

Trump, meanwhile, is straining to muddle the issue. That isn’t easy for someone who appointed three of the justices who buried Roe v. Wade and favors a national ban. “We’re going to come up with a time — and maybe we could bring the country together on that issue,” he said recently . “The number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. … And it’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable.” But a 15-week ban is still a ban.

What brought about this change was the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision enshrining the right to abortion. Since then, public opinion has shifted in favor of reproductive freedom.

A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 53% of Americans think medication abortion should be legal in their state, with only 22% saying it should not be.

Voters in seven states , including red ones such as Kansas and Ohio, have had the chance to vote on ballot initiatives involving abortion rights — and abortion rights have won every time.

Florida, which Trump carried twice, could be next. On Monday, the state Supreme Court issued a decision that will allow a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy — while approving a November referendum on a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. A poll last year found that 62% of Florida voters would vote “yes” — enough to meet the 60% required to pass. In any case, the proposal could energize enough pro-abortion rights voters to give Biden a victory in Florida.

The prospect of a Trump presidency should motivate those who support abortion rights to get to the polls this fall. But Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota and Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri have raised a related issue that should help expose how far out of step the GOP is with popular sentiment.

They propose repealing the notorious Comstock Act — an 1873 law making it a crime to mail anything intended for “the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion.” If it remains on the books and Trump wins, Smith noted , he could use this “zombie law to severely ratchet back abortion access in America without congressional action.”

At the moment, abortion medications are legally available nationwide. For nearly a century, the Comstock Act has been a dead letter, with courts and Congress agreeing that it does not apply to products meant for legal use.

But anti-abortion rights groups want to revive the harshest application of the law . The right-wing Heritage Foundation says if Trump regains the presidency, the Justice Department should use the Comstock Act to stop the distribution of abortion pills — which account for more than half of all abortions .

Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer who helped craft Texas’ 2021 ban on abortion and has represented Trump before the Supreme Court, told The New York Times , “We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books.”

Even he, however, is not oblivious to political reality. When it comes to the Comstock Act, Mitchell said, “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election.”

A concerted campaign to repeal the Comstock Act would force Republicans — including Trump — into a painful choice: Defend this retrograde statute, thus antagonizing pro-abortion rights voters, or break with the anti-abortion rights groups that they have long pandered to, at the risk of infuriating the GOP base.

For a long time, many Americans who put the highest value on the bodily autonomy of women could sleep through Republican attacks on abortion rights. Now that the talk has turned into a severe and imminent threat, they are waking up.

Steve Chapman was a member of the Tribune Editorial Board from 1981 to 2021. His columns, exclusive to the Tribune, appear the first Thursday of every month. He can be reached at [email protected] .

Submit a letter to the editor, of no more than 400 words, by emailing  [email protected] . To review our criteria, click  here.

More in Commentary

Commentary | Clarence Page: Donald Trump goes all in defending Jan. 6 mob and Karl Rove goes off

Opinion | Angie Leventis Lourgos: When an abortion clinic became the last one standing in Missouri

Commentary | Elizabeth Shackelford: As Russia’s actions demonstrate, our world order is fraying

Opinion | Stephen J. Lyons: Current-day Vietnam underscores the folly of America’s wars

Trending nationally.

• What you need to know about next week’s total solar eclipse
• What lies below: Pipeline beneath Key Bridge wreckage complicates an already complex cleanup
• Do they still make pinball machines? They do, in a huge new factory near O’Hare — with most selling to the 1 percent
• 2024’s ‘extremely active’ hurricane season could bring 23 named storms, experts say
• 99 Cents Only to close all 371 of its stores

How to Talk About Abortion

How to change hearts and minds, and reduce stigma while you're at it.

We know that the best way to change hearts and minds is to have open and honest conversations with people who trust us. This is also true when talking about abortion. So why is it so hard for some people to talk about abortion? Abortion stigma.

Abortion stigma is the shame and silence that surrounds abortion. It comes from years of well-practiced and often shared rhetoric that demonizes abortion and creates a challenging environment for us to talk openly and unapologetically about it. We, however, want to make sure that the way we speak about abortion promotes acceptance and normalization of this necessary health care that all people should be able to access. By talking with our loved ones about abortion, we can change the narrative around abortion and reassure people that abortion is essential health care.

Here are some tips for talking about abortion: we'll go over preparing your "why", facts and talking points to use in conversation, conversation starters, and language to use (and avoid).

STEP 1. PREPARE YOUR "WHY"

To fight back against institutions that are chipping away at abortion rights, we need to center those who are affected: all people who can get pregnant, those with low-incomes, and people for whom structural racism has created longstanding barriers to abortion access, such as Black, Indigenous, and Latinx people. Most likely, the reason you want to have these conversations about abortion is because of your own story. Maybe you’ve had an abortion or supported someone else through one. Maybe you’ve been a clinic escort or have experienced a pregnancy scare.

STEP 2. LEARN THE FACTS

Here are some resources we recommend:

- Considering Abortion - What Facts Do I Need to Know About Abortion?

- Planned Parenthood RED ALERT report on abortion restrictions

- National Abortion Federation “Women who have abortions”

STEP 3. PLAN YOUR AUDIENCE

We can change hearts and minds by speaking with our peers and trusting individuals. Here are a few different groups to think about speaking with about abortion:

- Members of a club/volunteer team/church

- Social media followers/mutuals

- Fitness groups

- Classmates

Be strategic in your timing as you plan these conversations. Rather than just reaching out randomly, create a plan for yourself. 

There are many different avenues to have these conversations with our loved ones. There is no guarantee that one conversation will change anyone’s mind, but it’s a good idea to make abortion a normalized topic for this person. Your conversations can happen via text, over the phone, in person, direct messaging, over social media, or wherever you think the person will be most receptive.

STEP 4. CONVERSATION OPENERS

For help with conversation openers, try a variation of one of these lines:.

“Hi ___, have you heard about the extremely restrictive new law in Texas that bans abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy? That’s before most people know they’re pregnant. It also allows strangers to sue people who help others get an abortion in the state.”

“____, I really care about access to safe, legal, abortion, and I’m afraid because this access is being taken away from us. Can we talk about it?”

“Hey, ___, I had an abortion. In my experience [insert story], but now I’m afraid that we won’t be able to access this essential health care for much longer.”

“___, I'm really worried about the future of abortion access. I have loved ones who have had abortions, and there are so many other people who depend on this essential care. People like [abortion story] and me, will be affected by this. Can we talk about it?

Keep in mind:

Really listen to what they're saying. Try to understand their point of view. Ask them questions like: ‘Tell me more about that’ or ‘How does that make you feel?’

Be clear about how you feel and what you want by using “I statements” and leaning into your own experience.

Agree to disagree. This doesn’t mean you agree with their perspective. You’re just protecting yourself by choosing which battles to fight.

Be proud of yourself for starting this conversation. It takes real courage. Each time you overcome your nervousness and do it, you’ll build your skills and confidence.

A FEW LAST TIPS

Always return the conversation to the real people involved — that's why your story matters so much.

Being vulnerable boosts vulnerable conversations and builds trust with the person you are speaking to. Open up to them about why you support abortion, whether you’ve had one, supported someone through one, are a clinic escort, or believe access to abortion under any circumstance is important. Let them know why. Allowing yourself to open up allows genuine and honest conversation to flow. And, people will listen to their loved ones, even if their opinion is not swayed much or right away.

Meet people where they are. Don’t make assumptions or judgements on the person’s beliefs. Level set and find common ground with your shared values. Refer to these values often during your conversation.Abortion stigma is the shame and silence that surrounds abortion.

Don’t frame abortion as a women's issue: this doesn't represent the trans, nonbinary and gender non-confirming people who can get pregnant.

Don’t talk about abortion as “tragic” or a “hard decision.” That is not true for everyone and further stigmatizes abortion! Abortion is always a personal decision.

StarTribune

End the 'zombie' comstock act.

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

In 1873, Ulysses S. Grant was president, the institution that would become Ohio State University opened its doors and Jesse James' gang carried out the first successful railroad robbery in what was then considered the American West — the small Iowa town of Adair.

Another noteworthy event that year: the enactment of the notoriously prudish Comstock Act , which criminalized the mailing of "every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device or substance."

As readers well understand, much has changed in the 151 years that have passed since then. Unfortunately, Comstock's antiquated, puritanical parameters on Americans' freedom of choice and expression remain on the nation's books. It's time to repeal this legal relic, which was considered priggish by many even as it debuted.

A key reason that Comstock is still law is that lawmakers throughout the years understandably have focused their energy on addressing current challenges, not cleaning up outdated statutes. While Comstock has essentially laid dormant during the modern era, there's a new urgency to eliminating this so-called "zombie" law.

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota, is commendably at the forefront of efforts to do so. In a recent commentary , Smith warned that Comstock could be resurrected to restrict or even ban access to abortion. As she noted, Comstock came up three times in recent oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving access to mifepristone.

The drug is one of two prescribed in medication abortions, and it can also be used to manage a miscarriage. Comstock could be wielded to prevent the drug's shipping to clinics or patients and prosecute anyone involved. "Even if the Supreme Court doesn't take the bait, a newly re-elected President Donald Trump could order his Department of Justice to start interpreting that line to mean that it is illegal to mail mifepristone," Smith wrote.

In 2023, medication abortions accounted for 63% of all U.S. abortions, up from 53% in 2020, according to the Guttmacher Institute . The medications, which are taken by mouth and have a strong safety profile, are understandably viewed by many as preferable to a surgical procedure. Impeding shipping of the drugs would likely reduce the number of women who can access them and therefore significantly reduce abortions. That's why abortion opponents see the 1873 law as a modern-day opportunity.

In an interview on Thursday, Smith lambasted "radical" judges and anti-abortion forces who would dust off Comstock to impose their narrow views on all. She plans to introduce legislation that would repeal it, a sensible solution that the Star Tribune Editorial Board supports.

"My goal is to take away the Comstock Act as a tool" to limit abortion access, she said.

As concerns mount over Comstock's misuse, Minnesotans should not be lulled into complacency. In early 2023, legislators passed the PRO Act, which codified access to reproductive health care in state law.

But as University of Minnesota law Prof. Jill Hasday noted, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that federal law, as long as it is constitutional, would take precedence over state law. Comstock would trump the 2023 PRO Act and other state safeguards.

What makes Comstock powerful is that it's already on the books, said Hasday, who is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Centennial Professor in Law at the U.

Congress doesn't need to pass anything in order for Comstock to be tapped to limit abortion rights. That it's already federal law also provides cover to a presidential administration wanting to use it to restrict health care for women. "It's just laying there in wait until the law is repealed," Hasday said, adding that "There's no reason for Comstock to stay on the books one more day. It is serving no positive purpose."

Advocates for repealing Comstock include conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley. In a March commentary in The Hill, he wrote that Comstock is "one of the most glaring attacks on free speech principles in our federal code."

Turley is right. Another critical point: Women weren't allowed to vote in 1873. The Comstock Act was passed at a time when women had no political voice. Yet their health care today could be limited by restrictions enacted during an unenlightened, unrepresentative era.

Comstock's expiration date is long past. Get rid of this harmful zombie law now.

Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Scott Gillespie, Denise Johnson and John Rash. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly and Elena Neuzil also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.

• Katherine Kersten: Extremist ideology has already hijacked Minnesota's social studies classes
• Could Minnesota be among the first states to offer a basic income program?
• Neal: Let's celebrate women's basketball. Let's also do better by its players.
• Plenty of baserunners, little production as Twins fall to Guardians 3-1
• Review: Country superstar Chris Stapleton shows it's about the conviction, not the showmanship
• Souhan: Are we sure the Vikings need to trade up for a QB?

Editorial cartoon: A good reason for darkness

Readers Write: Playing the piano, closing prisons, disability community, college sports

Protesters impede the necessary work of running schools

Katherine Kersten: Extremist ideology has already hijacked Minnesota's social studies classes

• Southeast Minnesotans worry over state water pollution response Apr. 6
• Could Minnesota be among the first states to offer a basic income program? Apr. 6
• End the 'zombie' Comstock Act • Editorial
• Keep Uber and Lyft rolling in the Twin Cities • Editorial
• Eclipse, cicadas and ... army worms? • Editorial
• A less-than-fond farewell to the University of Minnesota's Joan Gabel • Editorial
• Palmisano has earned another term in Minneapolis' 13th Ward • Editorial

© 2024 StarTribune. All rights reserved.

Samantha Casiano cries while visiting the gravesite of her daughter Halo with her daughter Camila and son Louie.

Her baby was going to die. Abortion laws forced her to give birth anyway

Photographs by Danielle Villasana Story by Rebecca Wright, CNN Published March 31, 2024

Samantha Casiano spent this month planning her daughter’s first birthday party. The 30-year-old east Texas mother of four knows how to throw a good party for her kids.

But this family get-together on Friday was not a traditional party, despite Casiano purchasing a cake and balloons for the event.

Instead, Casiano’s family spent the day at the gravesite of Halo Hope Villasana, Casiano’s daughter who was born with anencephaly, a fatal condition that prevents a child’s brain and skull from forming properly.

It affects about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies, most of which end in miscarriage or abortion.

But Casiano said she didn’t have the choice of an abortion.

“Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to do that because of the way the (abortion) law is written,” Casiano told CNN. Abortion in Texas is illegal in almost all cases because of a "trigger ban” that went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

There is an exception: the “medical emergency” statute in Texas allows for abortion if the mother has a “life-threatening” condition or is at “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” But these medical exemptions are rare and doctors, experts and patients — including Casiano — argue the wording in the law isn’t clear enough.

“I was lost,” Casiano said, remembering when she learned about the condition during her 20-week anatomy scan. “It was a very emotional day.”

After Casiano’s OB-GYN told her she wouldn’t be able to provide her with an abortion because of Texas’s restrictive abortion laws, Casiano and her husband, Luis Fernando Villasana, started looking into other options.

The closest abortion clinics were in New Mexico and Colorado, but getting there was simply financially and logistically impossible.

So, instead of being able to end her pregnancy, she spent months carrying a child she knew likely wouldn’t live more than a day.

“I’m her life support. I should be able to release my daughter,” Casiano said. “I am her mother. That is my right."

Halo died nearly four hours after she was born on March 29, 2023.

Casiano is one of 20 women challenging Texas’ restrictive abortion laws, claiming she was denied abortion care in Texas because of a lack of clarity in the state’s ” emergency medical ” exceptions in its abortion laws.

In August, a Texas district judge issued an injunction blocking Texas’s abortion bans as they apply to dangerous pregnancy complications, but an appeal from the state blocked the injunction shortly after. The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in November but hasn't ruled on the case yet.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his office have not yet responded to a request for comment.

The case is one of many legal battles surrounding abortion since the Supreme Court overturned national abortion rights protections in June 2022.

Now, one year after Halo’s birth and death, Casiano’s world continues to turn. Her other kids keep growing. But she’s far from feeling any closure.

“I feel like I’m going to feel this way forever,” Casiano said. “I’m scarred forever, literally.”

Danielle Villasana , a Houston-based photojournalist unrelated to the family, met Casiano while on assignment last year.

“She really pulls you in,” Villasana said about Casiano. “She’s incredibly intelligent, welcoming and friendly, despite the somber nature of why we were connecting in the first place.”

What started as a simple portrait assignment turned into more than 10 months of documenting Casiano and her family navigating life after Halo’s death. Her photos illustrate what the family’s days look like — visiting Halo’s gravesite on Sundays, driving to Chuck E. Cheese for her son’s birthdays, drawing on the trampoline in her family’s yard — and the intimate moments in between.

“I remember when I went to Samantha's house for the first time and saw how she has an altar at the corner of her home,” Villasana said.

It’s a collection of items thoughtfully placed on an accent table: a sonogram showing Halo’s fingers, a baptismal certificate and candle from a ceremony at the hospital, a prayer candle, prints of Halo’s hands and a plaster cast of her feet.

“Knowing what (having a child) feels like and then immediately having to lose that child after childbirth and everything you’re going through, seeing that (display) was really impactful,” Villasana said.

Casiano keeps these physical items out not only for herself and her family to remember Halo, but to create an opportunity for others to learn about her, too. Her experience giving birth to Halo was traumatic, but she doesn’t shy away from sharing her story.

“I want people to ask questions. I want people to know about her. I want people to be aware of the situation and why abortion is health care and why my daughter had to wait all the way until birth to be released into heaven,” Casiano said.

Following the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, nearly two dozen US states have banned or limited access to abortion. States where abortion is most limited, such as Texas, report higher rates of maternal and infant mortality , as well as greater economic insecurity .

Villasana hopes that photographing Casiano’s story puts a face to those statistics.

“As I’ve started to photograph this issue — not just Samantha’s story, but other women’s stories — I’ve been reminded that everyone’s life is so unique and different. There isn’t a cookie-cutter formula to everything, and it’s important to show the realities of these laws and what that looks like on a day-to-day basis right now,” Villasana said. “Often in the news and media, we see numbers and statistics and facts and figures, but we don’t see the humans behind those numbers.”

In December, Casiano finally received a headstone for Halo’s grave.

Casiano’s family had a small ceremony when the headstone was installed, framing the headstone with flowers and candles. Casiano’s daughter Camila placed two of her dolls on the stone.

“Seeing Camila leaving a doll for Halo, but also playing with the doll almost as if she’s playing with Halo, that was really tender to see,” Villasana said.

Casiano hopes that her daughter never has to go through the same pain she did.

“It’s the most traumatizing thing I’ve ever had to go through in my life,” Casiano said. “God forbid, if my daughter had to go through this, I would immediately be crying and furious.”

The headstone shows two etched images: one of Halo, surrounded by angel wings, and another shortly after Halo was born, with Casiano and her husband holding her in the hospital during their first and last moments together.

“It's not like it is total closure, but I felt like my daughter's free,” Casiano said. “My daughter is not imprisoned inside of my body waiting to be released. My daughter is free.”

Court hears arguments to throw out Tennessee abortion lawsuit, block ban in part

A three-judge panel said it would not issue a decision in court Thursday.

A three-judge panel heard arguments Thursday on throwing out a lawsuit challenging Tennessee's abortion ban as well as a motion to block part of the ban.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by seven women and two doctors against the state over its abortion bans. The judges are reviewing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and a motion for a temporary injunction against the ban as it applies to dangerous pregnancy complications.

Tennessee ceased nearly all abortion services when a trigger ban went into effect in August 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The state is one of 14 to cease nearly all abortions.

MORE: Fear, confusion, anxiety, stress: Tennessee doctors describe care under abortion ban

Performing or attempting to perform an abortion is a Class C felony in the state.

The panel, consisting of three women, said it will not issue a ruling Thursday. A ruling in writing is expected after they have reviewed the case.

In the lawsuit, the women allege they were denied "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care" because physicians "fear the penalties imposed by that ban," according to the lawsuit. The Tennessee attorney general and state board of medical examiners are also named in the suit.

The state argued that the wording of the ban was clear, pushing back against claims that physicians are unsure what constitutes legal abortion care.

"A few doctors saying as a matter of fact that they are unclear about what serious risk might entail in an edge case does not show vagueness as a matter of law," Whitney Hermandorfer, a lawyer with the Tennessee attorney general's office, said Thursday in court in response to a question from judges about affidavits physicians have submitted in the case.

The state argued that the individuals who filed the lawsuit are not currently undergoing the medical emergencies mentioned in the suit or seeking emergency care -- and thus lack the grounds to file the suit as they are asking for relief in hypothetical future scenarios.

"So while we can all agree the past health circumstances are incredibly unfortunate, I submit here that they do not provide a legal reason to invalidate the medical exception at issue in this case," Hermandorfer said in court.

MORE: Fighting for their lives: Women and the impact of abortion restrictions in post-Roe America

A narrow law passed last year in Tennessee allows abortions in cases of molar pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, to remove a miscarriage or to save the life of the mother. The law was passed in response to pushback from physicians and advocates.

The trigger law did not have an exception but allowed an affirmative defense that allows physicians being prosecuted over providing an abortion to justify their actions, claiming it was done to prevent death or serious injury. This clause, which lawmakers point to as an exception, only comes into effect during a criminal trial after a physician is charged with the felony and their license has been suspended.

In response to assurances given by prosecutors that they would not prosecute certain cases, Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal, a judge in the case, pushed back that there is no guarantee that the district attorney would not prosecute just based on their statements, noting that district attorneys are elected and change regularly.

The state also pushed back on the claim that the law violated the right to life clause of the state constitution, pointing to the exception to the ban.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argue against dismissing suit

Pushing back on the state's claim that the patients are not affected persons because the law does not criminalize abortions for women seeking care, Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Marc Hearron said plaintiffs are directly impacted by their care being denied.

"I don't really know how they can make that argument with a straight face," Hearron said.

"The physician plaintiffs are directly affected by the threatened enforcement of Tennessee's abortion ban. The abortion ban directly regulates what care they can and cannot provide their patients and it affects them by threatening them with imprisonment, fines and loss of their medical license if they violate the law," Hearron said.

Hearron argued that as long as one of the plaintiffs has standing in a case, then the court's jurisdiction should not be in question.

Pushing back against the state's claim that there has not been any governmental action in the form of charges being brought against a physician for violating the ban, Hearron argued that physicians are facing a threat of enforcement and that the enactment of the law was itself a governmental action.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also argued that physicians losing their medical licenses would constitute harm to their property, giving them standing to pursue the lawsuit.

The lawyers also alleged that patients in the state are not getting constitutionally required abortion care that they should get.

Center for Reproductive Rights attorneys also argued that the language of the exception law is just as vague as the original statute. They also argued that the language has multiple indeterminate meanings.

"Serious and substantial risk" to the life and health of a patient could mean different things to different people and are not, Linda Goldstein, the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in court.

Attorneys argued there were four sources of linguistic vagueness in the law: the use of nonmedical language, ambiguous terminology, no indication of timing and the reasonable medical judgement standard.

"In combination, they have left physicians clueless as to what they should do," Goldstein said in court.

"If we are going to send someone to prison for 15 years, they have to know that they are doing something that the statute prohibits," Goldstein said.

Goldstein cited Kate Cox's case, pointing to the dilemmas doctors are facing. Cox is a Texas woman who filed a lawsuit requesting an emergency abortion for a pregnancy with a severe anomaly.

After a trial court allowed her to get an abortion, the Texas Supreme Court blocked and then overturned that ruling, denying her an abortion. She eventually traveled out of state to access care.

Arguments over preliminary injunction

In a second hearing Thursday afternoon, attorneys for the plaintiffs presented arguments for a preliminary injunction -- a temporary, partial block on the ban's enforcement as the legal case continues -- as it relates to medically necessary abortions.

Related Stories

UNRWA struggles for future after allegations

• Apr 5, 6:00 AM

Trump sent Republicans scrambling on Nebraska bill

• Apr 4, 6:16 PM

Florida's 6-week ban 'catastrophic for the region'

• Apr 4, 6:32 AM

In addition to presenting the stories of women who say they were denied lifesaving care, they shared the story of Charlotte Miller, through a declaration provided by Dr. Sarah Osmundson, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and a member of the physician committee that reviews requests for medically necessary abortions.

Miller's fetus was diagnosed with acrania, which can develop into anencephaly, a fatal condition that can cause a severe buildup of amniotic fluid that could cause a mother's uterus to rupture, according to the declaration. But the committee turned down her request for an abortion, in part because physicians on the committee feared prosecution.

"It is the threat of prosecution and imprisonment that is chilling care under this ban," Goldstein said.

The Center for Reproductive Rights also pointed to the fact that defendants do not have any fact witnesses on their list.

Goldstein argued that none of the defendants have made a "binding statement" that physicians do not need to worry about being prosecuted for treating a patient who has a serious health risk or for providing preventative care.

"The fact that no defendant is willing to go on the record on these significant issues tightens the physician's fears about prosecution," Goldstein said.

Goldstein undercut testimony from the physicians on the state's witness list, saying none of them practice under Tennessee's abortion ban or serve on physician committees that review requests for abortions.

MORE: 'Our hearts hurt': Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

The plaintiffs' attorneys asked the court that any relief provided would not be limited to physicians and patients who are parties in the case but also include all pregnant people in Tennessee.

The state pushed back against the plaintiffs' request for an injunction over its vagueness, at times arguing plaintiffs just didn't like the policy of restriction.

"The entire presentation of the other side, I have not heard one acknowledgment of the fact that when they mention abortion care, what that involves is the termination of another life," Hermandorfer said.

The lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, is requesting a clarification of the medical exception in the abortion ban, through a declaration of when physicians can legally provide abortion care.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is asking the court to allow physicians to rely on their "good faith judgement" and consultation with patients in making their decisions in cases of medical conditions or pregnancy complications that pose a risk to the mother's life; medical conditions that are exacerbated by pregnancy; conditions that cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy, or require recurrent invasive intervention; and in cases of fatal fetal anomalies.

The suit argues that the exception to the abortion ban as it applies to emergency medical conditions violates the Tennessee constitution's due process and equal protections clauses. It also argues that the law is unconstitutionally vague for physicians who are unaware what care would meet the exceptions.

Despite claims from politicians, including Gov. Bill Lee, that the ban allows exceptions for pregnancies that threaten a woman's life or could cause serious bodily injury, some doctors told ABC News they believe this is not the case.

MORE: Tennessee 'trigger' law banning nearly all abortions goes into effect

The plaintiffs' stories.

Nicole Blackmon, a 31-year-old living in Tennessee, said she stopped taking medication for hypertension and a rare brain condition when she learned she was pregnant in July 2022 to avoid harming her pregnancy.

Fifteen weeks into her pregnancy, Blackmon said she learned her baby had a fatal diagnosis. Because she said she could not afford the thousands of dollars it would cost to travel to another state for abortion care, she was forced to continue her pregnancy despite risks to her health. She gave birth to a stillborn baby, according to the suit.

Allie Phillips, 28, and her husband were excited about the birth of their second daughter when they received a fatal diagnosis, she told ABC News in October. At 18 weeks pregnant, the couple said they were told the fetus had multiple anomalies that were incompatible with life. She told ABC News that many of the fetus' organs, including the heart and brain, had not properly developed and her doctor said the fetus' condition would continue to deteriorate and that continuing her pregnancy could pose serious risks to Phillips' health.

Due to Tennessee's ban, Phillips said her doctor told her that she could not offer her any advice on how to access abortion care. After doing their own research, the couple made an appointment at an abortion clinic in New York for the following week. When she arrived, she said she learned her baby's heart had stopped beating and she was taken in for emergency care because she was at risk of severe blood clots and infection, including sepsis.

Kaitlyn Dulong, who became pregnant in November 2022, was diagnosed with cervical insufficiency and told she would eventually lose her pregnancy, but she was not given abortion care until 10 days later when her cervix was dilated, she had lost all her amniotic fluid and the fetus' body was in the vaginal canal, according to the lawsuit.

Monica Kelly was 12 weeks pregnant when her fetus was diagnosed with Trisomy 13, a severe fetal condition, and was unlikely to survive birth or would die shortly after birth, according to the lawsuit. She was also told her continued pregnancy would put her at risk of preeclampsia and infection. She traveled to Florida for abortion care, the lawsuit says.

MORE: Delayed and denied: Women pushed to death's door for abortion care in post-Roe America

Kathryn Archer's fetus was diagnosed with severe fetal anomalies at 20 weeks of pregnancy, including irregular brain development and improperly developed organs and was unlikely to survive birth, according to the lawsuit. With assistance from an abortion fund, she traveled to Washington, D.C., for care.

Rebecca Milner was 20 weeks pregnant when she suffered pre-term premature rupture of membranes, making her pregnancy unlikely to survive and putting her at risk of a potentially life-threatening infection, according to the suit. She traveled to Virginia to get abortion care, but still developed an infection that doctors said was due to the delay in care, according to the lawsuit. She needed treatment for sepsis when she returned to Tennessee, the suit says.

Rachel Fulton was pregnant when an ultrasound showed inadequate fetal development of the nervous system, lower spine, lungs, abdomen, feet and hands, as well as fluid buildup in tissues and organs, the lawsuit states. She was also at risk of mirror syndrome, a life-threatening complication, so she drove to Illinois with her husband to access abortion care, according to the lawsuit.

Physicians Heather Maune and Laura Anderson are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit, suing on behalf of themselves and their patients. They are asking for clarity to provide care to their patients.

Related Topics

• Abortion Battle

Judge in NY Trump case quashes defense subpoena

• Apr 5, 3:43 PM

Cyclist Vingegaard has collapsed lung after crash

• Apr 5, 8:41 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events