Introduction to Historical Research Methods Emma Paddon March 4, 2016 The American Perspective on Abortion: The Unsettled Debate of the Twentieth Century [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 2 For over one hundred years, from the mid-nineteenth century to nineteen seventy-three, elective abortion practices were completely illegal in the United States. There were no publicly advertised clinics nor trusted hospitals for women to turn to. However, abortions still took place. Underground facilities, female support groups, and home-remedy abortions took the place of hospitals or registered doctors. These abortions operated in the living rooms of women running support groups, or in “back-alley” centers. In certain neighborhoods it was common knowledge who the illegal abortion practitioners were and where they operated, and yet they were rarely ever reported.1 Abortion is still the most common procedure of women ages fifteen to forty-four in the United States, terminating one in five pregnancies annually.2 No matter the law, no matter the popular opinion, abortion continues to be a part of American society.3 The transition of American values after 1973 defined the new era of legal abortions. Abortion rights are just one component of the umbrella of reproductive rights. These rights include “the rights to choose to have, or not have, children as well as to control one's reproductive decisions.”4 Abortion is considered the last possible effort to control one’s reproductive rights once the woman has already conceived an embryo, and the court case Roe v. Wade in 1973 gave woman the right to choose an abortion under the law.5 However, this right continues to be questioned. Objections to abortion, as well as the advocacy for it, are rooted in the American cultural experience. The right to be an individual and hold on to your own unique beliefs is a defining value of the American people. For this reason, there is no definitive “American perspective," however, popular groups have been created by people sharing similar beliefs. These “popular” beliefs include pro-choice, pro-life, pro-abortion and anti-abortion.6 [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 3 According to Gregory Jay of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the American perspective on abortion is rooted in its values of individualism, capitalism, modernism, religion, secularism and consumerism.7 Americans believe women should be judged by their individual actions and achievements rather than by their race or class. They also believe in capitalism, the economic system in which individuals work for and accumulate their own wealth. This allows citizens to make financial choices of their own. They also emphasize the idea of modernism, or progress, and the idea of moving forward towards greater things. Progress is often restricted by a strong religious base, but a strict separation of church and state allows citizenship, legal rights and access to public services to be available to everyone without religious prejudice.8 These values together allow Americans to decide what rights belong in their society, and what rights are deemed unconstitutional. The main argument by Pro-Choice for abortion rights is that an American citizen has the right to decide for themselves what they may or may not do to their bodies. However, the prochoice argument is not the same as the pro-abortion argument.9 It simply means that a woman has the option to choose should she need or want the procedure. She may choose any method she would like and exercise all her reproductive rights. There are three main reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion: because of a social issue, discomfort with a genetic relation, or to protect herself from an unwanted bodily intrusion.10 Socially, some women feel they are not financially ready or in a comfortable place in their lives to support a child. Some women fear having a child of their own, even if it is given up for adoption, because they feel uneasy having a genetic child out in the world that they are not raising themselves.11 And third, there is a fear of an unwanted bodily intrusion, whether pregnancy would risk the mother’s life or if she is simply uncomfortable with carrying a child. [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 4 Pro-choice advocates use these reasons as support for why someone would choose an abortion, even if there were other options.12 In contrast, pro-life and anti-abortion groups share the same idea that to end a human life is inherently wrong and legally murder. Simply put, there is no time in which abortion is the answer. They question the moral reasoning for ending a human life and fight abortion legality with issues of fetal vitality, the capacity of the fetus to live outside the womb, and use imagery to depict abortion as murder with butcher-like practices.13 There is one question that has persisted in this debate throughout the last forty years; who has the right to choose? Do women have the right to completely control their reproductive rights? Or, is it the government’s place to step in and regulate practices that put human life in danger? Gita Sen explains that, In all societies, the reproduction of human beings stands at the intersection of two sets of basic social relationships. On one hand are the relations that determine different claims of substance or entitlements; what and how much different members of society consume. On the other hand are the relations that govern who does the work of reproduction and under what conditions.14 The issue over who has the right of control raises the question of whether or not the debate will ever be closed, considering new information is added with every court case. As laws change, so do the opinions of the American public over abortion. These opinions then influence future laws, causing a seemingly endless cycle. This paper addresses how the changes in legal accessibility of abortion and contraception in the second half of the twentieth century in the United States relates to the American people’s perspective on abortion. [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 5 The Illegal Era - The American Perspective Before 1973 In 1960, according to the American Medical Association, the laws against abortion were unenforceable.15 It was estimated that nine out of ten premarital pregnancies ended in abortion, and an estimated 200,000 to 1.3 million illegal abortions were performed annually in the United States from the late 1940s to the early 1950s.16 No matter the law, no matter the popular opinion, abortion was present. The perception by many was that these underground abortions were seedy, dangerous operations occurring in dark alleys and that the practitioners were mercenaries or sexual predators taking advantage of young, frightened women.17 However, records indicate high rates of technical proficiency among the illegal practitioners and very low rates of septic abortions.18 This misconception has tainted the American perspective of the work of these practitioners and excluded them from the sphere of recognized medical professionals. The pre-1973 American perspective on abortion reflected the strong Christian morals of a white patriarchal society. According to Caryn D. Riswold, the author of Feminism and Christianity: Questions and Answers in the Third Wave, “Christianity is a religion that helps perpetuate patriarchy, whether or not a woman participates in a religious community, whether or not she is religious at all, religion affects her life because it shapes society. In any society, the dominance of one religion necessarily affects the culture and the laws that impact everyone.”19 It is the trend in the American political system to elect those who follow the Christian religion because they are believed to hold strong conservative morals. Every American president has identified as Christian, and almost every Supreme Court justice has as well.20 The centrality of Christianity in American society is in fact one of the central tenets of the anti-abortion and prolife movements.21 [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 6 Anti-abortion proponents have long utilized the Bible as a source to make claims towards the rights of women. The story of the creation of Eve from the Bible states that woman was created from the rib of man, which perpetrates the idea that women are fully dependent on their husbands under the law.22 In another story of Eve, she is tempted by the Devil to eat a forbidden apple. When she makes the choice to eat the fruit, her sin curses all future generations of human life to suffering. This further enforces the idea of woman’s inability to make the correct choice.23 These same sections of the Bible were used in Britain and America when women first sought the right to vote in the late nineteenth century.24 In the 1950s, a shift was made in the direction of targeting underground abortion practitioners. This shift was a result of the post-war reorganization of the American social order. While men were off fighting in the war, women were left at home with the responsibilities and jobs left by the men.25 At the conclusion of the war, when the men returned home, the women didn’t give up their new lives and avoided the return to domesticity. Instead, sixteen and a half million women continued to work and each year one million more women joined the working sphere.26 At the same time, there was a powerful movement by cultural and political officials to target illegal abortion practitioners. Laws were created to promote social practices in which the government, men specifically, had the right to choose for women her reproductive options. This targeted working women who faced the issue of securing childcare during working hours, especially if she was unmarried, which was most likely if she was seeking an abortion.27 While women took a step forward into the working sphere, they lost control of their bodies. The reforms that followed these new laws meant abortions transferred to the hands of doctors in hospitals, but the choice to receive the abortion was out of the woman’s hands. Hospital abortion boards became the only legal option for a woman seeking an abortion. These [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 7 boards consisted of doctors who had complete control over if these women would become mothers.28 For the moment, this was considered a significant development in the women’s movement towards controlling reproduction.29 The movement for women’s reproductive rights before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling can be compared to the fight for women’s rights in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The earlier movement called for the right to a divorce, to own property, to vote and for legally recognized rights over ones’ children.30 Parallels can be made between these movements through their influence in society. First, both required a restructuring of the old social order. With the right to a divorce and to live free of a husband, women were no longer under the control of a man. Her vote counted as much as her male counterpart and therefore she would be an equal citizen. Second, as when African Americans received the right to vote, white men felt personally that by giving something to others, something had been taken from them. With the right to control reproduction, women were increasingly moving out of the household and out of the control of men.31 For pro-choice advocates and feminists, the era before Roe v. Wade was full of movements for the legalization of contraception, of abortion, and for non-racist and non-class based policies supporting reproductive rights.32 Their fight was for the right to choose, to control their bodies and not answer to a man, or the government, to tell them what they could or could not do. These values became the basis of the women’s right movement around 1973. Rhonda Arias, aged 19 at the time of the ruling of Roe v. Wade, remembers, “It was the year Roe v. Wade was decided, and I remember saying, ‘No guy in Washington is going to tell me what to do with my body!’”33 This was a period in which women felt they must protect themselves and other women from being taken advantage of by the law. [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 8 Along with the organized protests, groups of women formed together to create collectives to help each other and provide aid for abortions. In Chicago, the Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation formed as an underground abortion service with the interest in not only providing women with options for abortion, but also the emotional support and care they would need along with it.34 This group, also known as The Jane Collective or Jane, ran from 1969 to 1973. Initially, their mission was to seek out doctors who would preform safe abortions at a fair rate of no greater than one hundred dollars, and from there they would send their clients to these physicians for the procedures.35 After discovering that one of their affiliated doctors was practicing without a medical license, the women of Jane decided they were just as capable of performing an abortion procedure as this man. After training under a doctor, the women of Jane began to perform abortions in their own apartments.36 In reaction to these risky procedures, women’s organizations, along with medical, public health, legal and religious groups, urged one-third of the state legislatures to liberalize their abortion statutes.37 Their argument was for the right to choose to have an abortion and to limit this right to the female who the abortion was being done to. This would ensure women equality and security under the law, and a safer option for women to turn to.38 Finally in 1973, it was ruled with Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional to restrict abortion by law for it violated a woman’s right to privacy.39 It specified that an abortion was illegal to restrict during the first trimester of a pregnancy, and that during the second trimester, the procedure may only be controlled by law if the women’s health is at risk.40 The court case however left some questions unanswered, particularly concerning the unborn fetus and its personhood under the law. It did not address at what point the fetus becomes a person and if at this point, its rights conflict with the rights of the mother.41 [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 9 The American Perspective After 1973 Following 1973, abortion providers and their supporters were confident in their cause but faced new arguments and tactics. The new legality of abortions in the United States sparked strong opposition by Pro-Life groups that sought to overturn Roe, or at least, in the meantime, create restrictions for abortion practitioners by focusing on fetal personhood amendments.42 In the last two decades of the 20th Century, the decision made in 1973 was upheld by two more Supreme Court cases. However, these cases increased restrictions to the process of receiving an abortion. The first case, in 1989, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, ruled that states could restrict public funds and facilities for abortion.43 In the second, Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, the right to an abortion was upheld yet states were also given the right to enforce waiting periods and parental consent for minors. Casey was in response to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 which consisted of four provisions that restricted the right to obtain an abortion under Roe. These four restrictions included a required notification to a spouse, a twenty-four hour waiting period, the disclosure of information, and required parental consent for minors.44 Though the Supreme Court did not allow for the spousal permission, it did remove the idea of trimester based controls on abortion that Roe had instilled. Rather, it allowed states to restrict abortions based on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother.45 The issue of the life of the fetus was addressed again in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which gave the state the right to override the right of the woman in the interest in protecting fetal life.46 The state could restrict certain abortion practices, namely the partial-birth abortion. The term “partial-birth abortion” originated after a meeting of the National Abortion Federation in 1992 when physician Martin Haskell gave a presentation of the procedure he [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 10 named Dilation and Extraction, or D&X. D&X is performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy and involves “dilating the women’s cervix over several days, extracting the fetus until the skull lodged in the cervix and then puncturing the skull and removing the contents to allow for removal without damage to the women’s cervix.”47 This would perhaps replace the most common procedure of D&E, Dilation and Evacuation, which involves a combination of instrumentation and aspiration. In reaction, Anti-Abortion advocates gave the name “partial-birth abortion” to the D&X technique, which holds no medical basis, and misled the public to believe that these abortions were performed on viable fetuses.48 As a result of this campaign, between 1995 and 2000, bans on the partial-birth abortion were passed in more than half of the United States. These bans made it a crime for a physician to take “further steps to remove a fetus from a women’s body if the physician has drawn a substantial portion of the fetus into the vagina prior to fetal demise”, a phrase that widely limits what doctors can and cannot do.49 This continued through 1996 and 1997, when the U.S Congress passed two national bans on partial birth abortions, both vetoed by President Bill Clinton. In another issue involving the D&X procedure, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2000 case Stenberg v. Carhart that laws banning partial birth abortions were unconstitutional because they did not protect the health of pregnant women and the term is too broad.50 It is important to note that, just as prior to Roe v. Wade, public opinion after 1973 shaped the political tide of restrictions. The acts, bills and movements towards restricting abortions would not have been without the public’s involvement. It was the Anti-Abortion and Pro-Life campaigns’ cartoon images of D&X procedures that sparked the controversy over partial-birth abortions that initially raised the issue.51 The use of visual aids, such as graphic posters, have been used for decades to discriminate against abortion practitioners. In 1984, the movie “The [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 11 Silent Scream” depicted an abortion taking place via ultrasound on U.S. national television.52 This film is still shown by abortion opponents and is a famous example of the use of imagery to invoke emotion over the cause. The presence of abortion imagery in the public sphere generated a feeling that Roe had failed at settling the debate over abortion rights. Roe’s inability to address fetal viability gave Pro-Life advocates a starting point by asking for clarification in an attempt to undo the ruling. The issue of viability does not change that, “Embryos and fetuses are alive and human. This is biological fact. But biological facts alone do not settle moral issues.”53 Viability has not settled the question whether or not the viable fetus is a person yet. Personhood is defined as “the possession of certain cognitive capacities, such as self-consciousness, reasoning abilities, autonomy (the ability to self-govern and make rational choices) and moral agency.”54 Personhood amendments, if passed, would undo the ruling in Roe because Roe rests on the assumption that abortion is legal as long as fetuses are not full persons.55 If a fetus is a person, then abortion would be equivalent to murder. In 2003, the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in both houses and signed into law by the president. The Ban included no exception for women’s health and mentioned no particular technique.56 It claimed that the partial-birth abortion was never necessary. In retaliation, experts came out saying that intact Dilation and Evacuation, or D&E, is the safest procedure for women with certain medical conditions such as uterine scars, bleeding disorders, heart disease or compromised immune systems, or women carrying fetuses with particular health conditions.57 Three lower federal court cases ruled the Ban unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed these rulings in 2007 with Gonzales v. Carhart. In reaction to this case, cartoonist John Sherffius drew the pediment of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C as a [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 12 clothing hanger, a symbol of the gory and dangerous self-induced abortions.58 The image stirs up the fear associated with self-induced or back-alley abortions and is an attempt to convey the message that abortions will still take place no matter the law, but the safety of young girls will be compromised and they will turn to a risky procedure. An example of this can be seen through the story of a seventeen-year-old girl named Becky Bell, who, in 1988, out of fear of going to her parents for their consent, underwent an illegal abortion that resulted in an infection that ended her life. Becky’s parents have become strong opponents to the ruling made under Casey, and they add to the argument that restricting abortion takes as many lives as the procedure itself. 59 Abortion laws have moral implications by both sides, no matter the ruling. Pro-Choice argues that women should have abortions to protect themselves from their abusers and the unwanted pregnancies that will leave them with horrible emotional, physical and mental disabilities.60 The counter argument is that undergoing an abortion will cause the same disabilities for the woman, however, these disabilities are often correlated to the situation itself that put the female in the condition of choosing an abortion, such as an abusive relationship, rape or unstable finances. Studies have shown that the rate of depression among women was 20 percent after undergoing an abortion, the same as the national rate for all women ages 15 to 35 and “up to 10 percent of women have symptoms of depression or other psychological distress after an abortion — the same rates experienced by women after childbirth”61 Rhonda Arias, the same woman who fought for her right to an abortion in the 1970s, blames her abortions for her years of depression and drug abuse. She, along with other abortion-recovery activists, believes that abortion doesn’t help women but rather is the cause of their pain.62 She visits women’s prisons all over Texas to speak to women about the circumstances of their abortions and how their choice to undergo an abortion is what got them where they are today. To mourn their choices and in attempt to forgive [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 13 themselves, these incarcerated women pick out baby shoes and write the names of their aborted and miscarried babies on cards for a memorial service led by Arias.63 In a similar change of heart, Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade case, has come to regret her role in legalizing abortion out of fear of endangering the health of women.64 Although all serious studies on the mental health of post-abortive women conclude that there is no direct effect from the procedure, the claim is still present and could restrict the right to an abortion in the future. The abortion debate is not clear-cut, but rather there is an unlimited number of special cases to be addressed and leave the argument never ending; rape, incest, abuse, impossible to meet obligations to the child and poverty and severe threats to the women’s health incite personal obligations to the issue.65 Working women face the issue of restriction from employment if they have children, and statistically a woman’s wage decreases as the number of children she has increases.66 The shame of joining the workforce as opposed to bearing children is found mostly in impoverished communities. Women living in poverty feel the burden of social constraints more than any other group for they are more vulnerable to a work and family conflict. These women face the issue of finding childcare during working hours and often are raising fatherless children with no financial support, living off of an average of fifteen thousand dollars a year.67 Further, it can be argued that a woman has the right to protect herself from unwanted bodily intrusion by the pregnancy and she holds no obligations to the unborn child.68 In this particular case, “pregnancy is then experienced in a way an illness would be, not only because of the discomfort that often accompanies it, especially the early stages (nausea, fatigue, digestive problems and so on) but also owing to the very nature of its strange particularity, a kind of proliferation of foreign flesh in the texture of the flesh itself.”69 The emotions of a woman in this condition are of “great distress” and there is a tense feeling of an obligation to the child, or [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 14 “‘thing’ lodged inside”, that was not asked for.70 This intrusion disrupts the education, employment and the body of the woman, and could impede her from success in her future.71 In this case, the fetus can be seen as something that harms both the physical and emotional health of the woman no matter its status as a person.72 This argument would stand against the assumption that personhood undoes the ruling of Roe. The court cases of the late 20th and early 21st centuries left more questions unanswered than answered. As more perspectives come forward in response to the acts and court cases, there are more unknowns to be recognized. It is not yet understood at what point a human fetus becomes a person of legal and moral status, nor when the right of the mother has priority over the right of the fetus inside her. What are the rights of the biological father of the child in the decision to abort, or the right of the parents of an impregnated minor to force her to have an abortion against her will? As technology advances, it could become a feasible option to claim fetal vitality at any stage of the pregnancy, and if this occurs, Roe and other abortion laws that claim abortions are legal only before vitality could be repealed.73 The abortion issue in the United States continues to be a debate shared by law makers and the public alike due to the laws’ inability to make firm claims over restrictions or allowances. Until hard laws are put into place that use strict medical terms and address all special cases, the push for personhood amendments and further restrictions will continue as they are in 2016, and the American people will continue to ask the question Roe did not explicitly answer, “Whose right is it?” [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 15 Notes Rickie Solinger, Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle 1950-2000. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1998), 4. 2 Rachel K. Jones et al., “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40, no. 1 (2008): 6–16. 3 Ibid. 4 Joanne Green, “Reproductive Rights,” in Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities, ed. C. Tate, vol. 4. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006), 39-43. 5 “Abortion,” in Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, (Detroit: Gale, 2014), accessed March 3, 2016, Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 6 Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Pro-Life. Pro-Choice: Shared Values in the Abortion Debate. (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014), 89-90. 7 Gregory Jay, “Common Culture,” accessed February 5, 2016, https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/CommonCulture.pdf. 8 Ibid. 9 Manninen, Pro-Life, 9-10. 10 Ibid., 14. 11 Ibid., 46-59. 12 Ibid. 13 Solinger, Wars, 3. 14 Gita Sen and Rachel Snow, Power and Decision: The Social Control of Reproduction, Harvard series on Population and International Health (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994), 5. 15 Solinger, Wars, 17. 16 Ibid., xi. 17 Ibid., 4. 18 Ibid. 19 Caryn D. Riswold, Feminism and Christianity: Questions and Answers in the Third Wave. (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2014), 21. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 27. 23 Ibid., 26. 24 Ibid., 27. 25 Ibid., 5. 26 Ibid. 27 Sen and Snow, Power, 45. 28 Solinger, Wars, 6. 29 Linda Gordon, Women’s Body, Women’s Right. (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976), 350-353. 30 Sen and Snow, Power, 9. 31 Ibid., 10. 32 Solinger, Wars, 16. 33 Emily Bazelon, “Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?” The New York Times, January 21, 2007, accessed November 22, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html. 34 Ibid., 34. 35 Ibid., 35. 36 Ibid. 37 Solinger, Wars, 96. 38 Ibid. 39 Abortion. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Manninen, Pro-Life, 19. 43 Ibid., 43. 44 Ibid., 43. 100. 45 Ibid., 98-99. 1 [Type here] 46 [Type here] Paddon 16 Tracy A. Weitz and Susan Yanow, “Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women’s Health in the United States,” Reproductive Health Matters 16, no. 31 (May 1, 2008): 100. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid., 101. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 100. 52 Ibid. 53 Manninen, Pro-Life, 11. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid., 12. 56 Weitz and Yanow, Implications, 102. 57 Ibid. 58 John Sherffius, Roberts Court Cartoon, April 18, 2007, http://www.cagle.com/2007/04/john-sherffius-cartoonfor-4182007/. 59 Manninen, Pro-Life, 43. 60 Bazelon, Post-Abortion. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., 49. 66 Sen and Snow, Power, 51. 67 Ibid., 50. 68 Manninen, Pro-Life, 51. 69 Luc Boltanski, The Foetal Condition: The Sociology of Engendering and Abortion, trans. Catherine Porter 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013), 209. 70 Ibid. 71 Jennifer A. Hurley, ed., Women’s Rights: Great Speeches in History. (San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 2002), 150. 72 Ibid. 73 Manninen, Pro-Life, 19. [Type here] [Type here] Paddon 17 Bibliography “Abortion.” In Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Accessed March 3, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Boltanski, Luc. The Foetal Condition: The Sociology of Engendering and Abortion. Translated by Catherine Porter. 2nd ed. Cambridge, GBR: Polity Press, 2013. Gordon, Linda. Women’s Body, Women’s Right. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976. Green, Joanne. “Reproductive Rights.” In Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities, edited by C. Tate, vol. 4, 39–43. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. Accessed December 12, 2015. Gale. Hurley, Jennifer A., editor, Women’s Rights: Great Speeches in History. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 2002. Jay, Gregory. “Common Culture” Accessed February 5, 2016. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/ www/CommonCulture.pdf. Jones, Rachel K., Mia R. S. Zolna, Stanley K. Henshaw, and Lawrence B. Finer. “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health vol. 40, no. 1 (2008): 6-16. Manninen, Bertha Alvarez. Pro-Life. Pro-Choice: Shared Values in the Abortion Debate. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014. Riswold, Caryn D. Feminism and Christianity: Questions and Answers in the Third Wave. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2014. Accessed December 7, 2015. Ebrary. Sen, Gita, and Rachel Snow. Power and Decision: The Social Control of Reproduction. Harvard Series on Population and International Health. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994. Solinger, Rickie. Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle 1950-2000. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1998. Weitz, Tracy A., and Susan Yanow. “Implications of the Federal Abortion Ban for Women’s Health in the United States.” Reproductive Health Matters 16, no. 31 (May 1, 2008): 99– 107.