write a good 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
Discussion Board Post

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.

What Makes A Good Leader: Essay Hints

How To Write The Best Paper On Police Brutality?

How human activities can have an impact on natural disasters?

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

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 persuasive essay writing service ? We've got your back!

MyPerfectWords.com 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.

So, just ask our experts ' do my essay ' and get professional help.

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey

Since the Supreme Court’s historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade , the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception – making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies – sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me – I used to hear it so much – was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade .

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade . We now speak of reproductive justice – and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues – like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion – for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness – and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they’re moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That’s why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that’s an important distinction.

You’ve talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it’s more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it’s important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman’s pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There’s an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman’s pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I’ve never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the “culture wars.” Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, “I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it’s totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe.” It’s not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people’s different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other’s viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience – and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, “You must bring this child into the world.” They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Religion & Abortion
Religion & Social Values

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, what the data says about abortion in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

TED is supported by ads and partners 00:00

A better way to talk about abortion

storytelling
decision-making

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

It can be really uncomfortable to talk about abortion. here’s why we should.

Brit Bennett Brit Bennett

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/it-can-be-really-uncomfortable-to-talk-about-abortion-heres-why-we-should

When you write a novel about abortion, says author Brit Bennett, you will have a lot of conversations with strangers about abortion. It’s made her realize how rarely we talk about it as a human experience. What if we approached all polarizing topics more willing to experience the world through someone else's eyes? Bennett offers her humble opinion on setting ideology aside to connect.

Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Judy Woodruff:

Brit Bennett's debut novel, "The Mothers," centers on a character's decision to have an abortion.

It caused a stir when it was published last fall, and is still sparking conversations across the country, as you will hear in tonight's In My Humble Opinion.

Brit Bennett:

When you write a novel where a character has an abortion, you will have a lot of conversations with strangers about, well, abortion.

It usually goes like this. Someone asks what you do for a living. You say that you're a fiction writer. Then they ask what your book is about.

My novel explores the ripples a teenager's abortion causes throughout her church community. There's no way to describe the story without launching an intensely emotional and intensely political topic at a person you have just met.

Oh, people often say, so it is autobiographical?

All fiction writers get asked this question, but it never loses its absurdity. Like, did my Lyft driver just really ask if I have ever had an abortion?

Turns out, it's really uncomfortable to talk about abortion. And as I have traveled this past year, I have realized how rarely we do so. We debate the politics, of course. We march and protest and rally. We yell at strangers on the Internet who disagree with us.

But how often do we talk to each other about abortion as a human experience?

Since publishing my novel, I have heard from many strangers who just wanted someone to talk to. Once, an older man who'd just interviewed me confessed that he'd personally experienced an abortion. I didn't know if it was a girlfriend or sister. He said it quietly, not looking at me, and I wondered how many people he'd ever told.

Before the novel's release, a grief-stricken teenage girl wrote me on Instagram. She was searching for a book that would relate to her recent abortion and stumbled upon mine. I didn't know how to comfort her, but she didn't want much. She just thanked me for writing the book, grateful for a space to process her loss.

Of course, you can never completely avoid politics, and I have had some readers argue that my book is too pro-life, others that it's too pro-choice. But I have mostly been encouraged by all the readers who've approached my novel with nuance and empathy.

From Wichita to San Francisco, I have met readers from all across the political spectrum who set aside ideology in order to connect over a human story.

This is the wonder of fiction. Novels help us have difficult conversations, and allow us to explore topics that are far more complicated than our polarized politics suggest.

Awkward small talk aside, it's been liberating to have conversations about abortion that don't center on what side we're on. Instead, we have talked about family and grief and agency and what it means for this particular girl to make this particular decision.

When we seek to understand another person, our own world enlarges. And I wonder what our political debates would look like if we all approached polarizing topics the way readers do, willing to peek around our own beliefs in order to briefly experience the world through another's eyes.

Novelist Brit Bennett.

Listen to this Segment

Watch the Full Episode

Support Provided By: Learn more

More Ways to Watch

PBS iPhone App
PBS iPad App

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Why Biden gave a speech about abortion rights

Mara Liasson

Alejandra Marquez Janse

Sarah Handel

Roberta Rampton

Ailsa Chang

President Biden gave a speech about abortion rights Tuesday, billed as a political event ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President Biden on Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services

Roosevelt Room

12:04 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everyone. Before I speak to the Supreme Court extreme decision overturning Roe, I want to comment on one piece of good news — economic good news today. Today, the Labor Department reported that we added 372,000 jobs last month — 372,000. Here’s why it’s important: Our private sector has now have recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic and added jobs on top of that. We have more Americans working today in the private sector than any day under my predecessor, more today than any time in American history — today. In the second quarter of this year, we created more jobs than any quarter under any of my predecessors in nearly 40 years before the pandemic. Think about that. At a time when our critics said the economy was too weak or having already added more jobs in my — we had already added more jobs my first year as President of any president in history, we still added more jobs in the past three months than any administration in nearly 40 years. Now, look, I know times are tough. Prices are too high. Families are facing a cost-of-living crunch. But today’s economic news confirms the fact that my economic plan is moving this country in a better direction. The unemployment rate is near a historic low of 3.6 percent. Private sector jobs are at a record high. Gas prices, still way too high, have fallen now 25 days in a row, and this week we saw the second-largest single-day decrease in gas prices in a decade. We still have a lot of work to do. I’m not suggesting — there’s a lot more work to do. But I am suggesting we’re making progress. The program is working. Now, with the Vice President, Secretary Becerra, and Deputy Attorney General Monaco, I want to talk about an executive order I’m signing to protect reproductive rights of women in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s terrible, extreme, and, I think, so totally wrongheaded decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In [It] both formalized actions I announced right after the decision, as well as adding new measures today. Let’s be clear about something from the very start. This was not a decision driven by the Constitution. Let me say it again: This was not a decision driven by the Constitution. And despite what those justices in the majority said, this was not a decision driven by history. You’ve all probably had a chance to the read the decision and the dissent. The majority rattles off laws from the 19th century to support the idea that Roe was historic- — was a historical anomaly because states outlawed abortion in the 1880s, toward the end. But that’s just wrong. The truth is today’s Supreme Court majority that is playing fast and loose with the facts. Even 150 years ago, the common law and many state laws did not criminalize abortion early in pregnancy, which is very similar to the viability line drawn by Roe. But the Dobbs majority ignores that fact. And the Dobbs majority ignores that many laws were enacted to protect women at the time when they were dying from unsafe abortions. This is the horrific reality that Roe sought to end. The practice of medicine should not — emphasize — should not be frozen in the 19th century. So, what happened? The dissenting opinion says it as clear as you can possibly say it. And here’s the quote: “Neither law nor facts nor attitudes have provided any new reason to reach a different result than Roe and Casey did.” And that’s has changed — excuse me — and “All that has changed is this Court.” End of quote. “All that has changed is this Court.” That wasn’t about the Constitution or the law. It was about a deep, long-seething antipathy towards Roe and the broader right to privacy. As the justices wrote in their dissent, and I quote, “The majority has overruled Roe and Casey for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them.” End of quote. So, what we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment. It was an exercise in raw political power. On the day the Dobbs decision came down, I immediately announced what I would do. But I also made it clear, based on the reasoning of the Court, there is no constitutional right to choose. Only the way — the only way to fulfill and restore that right for women in this country is by voting, by exercising the power at the ballot box. Let me explain. We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law. Your vote can make that a reality. I know it’s frustrating and it made a lot of people very angry. But the truth is this — and it’s not just me saying it; it’s what the Court said: When you read the decision, the Court has made clear it will not protect the rights of women. Period. Period. After having made the decision based on a reading of a document that was frozen in time in the 1860s, when women didn’t even have the right to vote, the Court now — now — practically dares the women of America to go to the ballot box and restore the very rights they’ve just taken away. One of the most extraordinary parts of the decision, in my view, is the majority writes, and I quote, “Women…” — it’s a quote now, from the majority — “Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who registered to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so.” End of quote. Let me repeat the line: “Women are not without electoral…” and/or political — “or” — let me be precise; not “and/or” — “…or political power.” That’s another way of saying that you, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue. I don’t think the Court or, for that matter, the Republicans who for decades have pushed their extreme agenda have a clue about the power of American women. But they’re about to find out, in my view. It’s my hope and strong belief that women will, in fact, turn out in record numbers to reclaim the rights that have taken from them by the Court. And let me be clear: While I wish it had not come to this, this is the fastest route available. I’m just stating a basic, fundamental notion. The fastest way to restore Woe [sic] — Roe is to pass a national law codifying Roe, which I will sign immediately upon its passage at my desk. And we can’t wait. Extreme Republican governors, extreme Republican state legislatures, and Republican extremists in the Congress overall — all of them have not only fought to take away the right — our rights — but they’re now determined to go as far as they can. Now the most extreme Republican governors and state legislatures have taken the Court’s decision as a green light to impose some of the harshest and most restrictive laws seen in this country in a long time. These are the laws that not only put women’s lives at risk, these are the laws that will cost lives. What we’re witnessing is a giant step backwards in much of our country. Already, the bans are in effect in 13 states. Twelve additional states are likely to ban choice in the next coming — in the coming weeks. And in a number of these states, the laws are so extreme they have raised the threat of criminal penalties for doctors and healthcare providers. They’re so extreme that many don’t allow for exceptions, even for rape or incest. Let me say that again: Some of the states don’t allow for exceptions for rape or incest. This isn’t some imagined horror. It’s already happening. Just last week, it was reported that a 10-year-old girl was a rape victim in Ohio — 10 years old — and she was forced to have to travel out of the state, to Indiana, to seek to terminate the presnency [pregnancy] and maybe save her life. That’s — the last part is my judgment. Ten years old. Ten years old. Raped, six weeks pregnant. Already traumatized. Was forced to travel to another state. Imagine being that little girl. Just — I’m serious — just imagine being that little girl. Ten years old. Does anyone believe that it’s the highest majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with, or in any other state in the nation? A 10-year-old girl should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child? I can tell you what: I don’t. I can’t think of anything as much more extreme. The Court’s decision has also been received by Republicans in Congress as a green light to go further and pass a national ban. A national ban. Remember what they’re saying. They’re saying there’s no right to privacy, so therefore it’s not protected by the Constitution, so leave it up to the state and the Congress, what they want to do. And now my Republican friends are talking about getting the Congress to pass a national ban. The extreme positions that they’re taking in some of these states. That will mean the right to choose will be illegal nationwide if, in fact, they succeed. Let me tell you something: As long as I’m President, it won’t happen, because I’ll veto it. So the choice is clear. If you want to change the circumstances for women and even little girls in this country, please go out and vote. When tens of millions of women vote this year, they won’t be alone. Millions and millions of men will be taking up the fight alongside them to restore the right to choose and the broader right to privacy in this nation, which they denied existed. And the challenge from the Court to the American women and men — this is a nation. The challenge is: Go out and vote. Well, for God’s sake, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote, vote. Consider the challenge accepted, Court. But in the meantime, I’m signing this important executive order. I’m asking the Justice Department that, much like they did in the Civil Rights era, to do something — do everything in their power to protect these women seeking to invoke their right: In states where clinics are still open, to protect them from intimidation. To protect the right of women to travel from a state that prohibits seeking the medical attention that she needs to a state to provide that care. To protect a woman’s right to the FDA-approved — Federal Drug Administration-approved medication that’s been available for over 20 years. The executive order provides safeguards to access care. A patient comes into the emergency room in any state in the union. She’s expressing and experiencing a life-threatening miscarriage, but the doctor is going to be so concerned about being criminalized for treating her, they delay treatment to call the hospital lawyer who is concerned the hospital will be penalized if a doctor provides the lifesaving care. It’s outrageous. I don’t care what your position is. It’s outrageous, and it’s dangerous. That’s why this executive order directs the Department of Health and Human Services — HHS — to ensure all patients, including pregnant women and girls experience pregnant — experiencing pregnancy loss get emergency care they need under federal law, and that doctors have clear guidance on their own responsibilities and protections no matter what the state — no matter what state they’re in. The executive order protects access to contraception — that I’m about to sign. Justice Thomas himself said that under the reasoning of this decision — this is what Justice Thomas said in his concurring opinion — that the Court “should reconsider the constitutional right to contraception — to use contraception even among married couples. What century are they in? There used to be a case called — Connecticut v. Griswold [Griswold v. Connecticut], which was declared unconstitutional in the late ‘60s. It said a married couple in the privacy of their bedroom could not decide to use contraception. Right now, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the Affordable Care Act guarantees insurance coverage for women’s health services, including — including free birth control. The executive order directs HHS to identify ways to expand access to reproductive health services, like IUDs, birth control pills, emergency contraception. And equally important, this executive order protects patient privacy and access to information, which looking at the press assembled before me, probably know more about it than I do. I’m not a tech guy. I’m learning. But right now, when you use a search engine or the app on your phone, companies collect your data, they sell it to other companies, and they even share it with law enforcement. There’s an increasing concern that extremist governors and others will try to get that data off of your phone, which is out there in the ether, to find what you’re seeking, where you’re going, and what you’re doing with regard to your healthcare. Talk about no privacy — no privacy in the Constitution. There’s no privacy, period. This executive order asks the FTC to crack down on data brokers that sell private information to extreme groups or, in my view, sell private information to anybody. It provides private health information — it protects private health information in states with extreme laws. And the executive order strengthens coordination at a federal level. It establishes a task force, led by the White House Department — and the Department of Human Services, focused specifically on using every federal tool available to protect access to reproductive healthcare. You know, let me close with this: The Court and its allies are committed to moving America backward with fewer rights, less autonomy, and politicians invading the most personal of decisions. Remember the reasoning of this decision has an impact much beyond Roe and the right to privacy generally. Marriage equality, contraception, and so much more is at risk. This decision affects everyone — unrelated to choice — beyond choice. We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with the extremist elements of the Republican Party, to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy. The choice we face as a nation is between the mainstream and the extreme, between moving forward and moving backwards, between allowing politicians to enter the most personal parts of our lives and protecting the right to privacy — yes, yes — embedded in our Constitution. This is a choice. This is a moment — the moment — the moment to restore the rights that have been taken away from us and the moment to protect our nation from an extremist agenda that is antithetical to everything we believe as Americans. Now, I’m going to sign this executive order. The executive order is “Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services.” (The executive order is signed.) Q Mr. President, what does Prime Minister Abe’s death last night say about the security situation in Japan? And can you give us an update on your thinking about lifting China tariffs, please? THE PRESIDENT: Let me — I — I tried to put a call in to — to the present Prime Minister. And he was — it was very late there at night. I’ll be talking there in the morning. I’m going to be stopping to sign the condolence book at the Japanese embassy on the way to the CIA. This hasn’t happened to Japan in decades — in decades, I’m told, all the way back to the late ‘30s or mid-‘30s. And it’s a homemade weapon. I’ve only seen a photograph of it. The Justice Department is going to be going in and giving me more detail later as they find out the detail. But the fact is that one thing did strike my — get my attention: that this is the first use of a weapon to murder someone in the — in Japan. And I think we have thus far have 3,000 — I — don’t hold me to the number — 688 or — I mean, between 3- and 4,000 cases. They have one. One. One. And so — but we’re going to learn more about — as time goes on, about motive, about, you know, the whole — but Japan — Fumio, the present Prime Minister, is a very solid guy. Japan is a very, very stable ally. And we — I do not believe it’s likely to have — but I don’t know yet — likely to have any profound, destabilizing impact on Japanese security or Japanese solidarity. Thank you all so very much. Q The one on tariffs as well, sir. Can you just give us your thoughts on China ta- — lifting China tariffs? THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t made that decision. We’re going through them one at a time. 12:24 P.M. EDT

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

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

Eight Supreme Court Cases To Watch

Ohio Abortion Providers File New Challenges to Unconstitutional Medication Abortion Restrictions

Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.

Court Allows Alabama Abortion Support Lawsuit to Move Forward

Search Search Search …
Search Search …

Abortion-Related Speech as a Protected Freedom of Speech

The debate about abortion-related commercial speech has long been contentious in the United States. Since 1975, abortion-related publications have been protected under the First Amendment as commercial speech that serves a public interest. [1] However, in a post- Dobbs era, reproductive healthcare providers and advocacy groups are renewing challenges to abortion literature restrictions enacted throughout the U.S. [2]

This blog advocates to restore abortion-related commercial speech as a protected right under national and universal freedom of expression principles. Further, the right to advertise abortion services and promote safe abortion practices is extended extraterritorially, which is increasingly critical in a post- Dobbs era. Pregnant people have a right to access information about where and how to obtain safe abortions regardless of a state’s restrictions of abortion services. This blog is not a debate about abortion and reproductive rights in the U.S.; rather it is an examination of abortion-related commercial speech as a protected freedom of expression.

Abortion-Related Commercial Speech

Abortion-related commercial speech is both a constitutional right and human right with a significant interest to the general public. [3] Abortion-related commercial speech includes the advertising of abortion procedures or medication that can abort or prevent a pregnancy, informational pamphlets sponsored by an abortion provider or manufacturer, or online advertising where to obtain an abortion. [4] Since 1975, abortion-related commercial speech has been protected under the First Amendment. [5] In Bigelow v. Virginia , the Supreme Court unambiguously decriminalized abortion-related commercial speech, stressing that “commercial speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection.” [6] The Court held that abortion-related commercial speech, in particular, has a social value beyond a mere commercial transaction because the advertisement “convey[s] information of potential interest and value to a diverse audience.” [7] Forty-seven years later, the right to abortion-related commercial speech must now be re-established.

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , questions on the legality of abortion-related commercial speech are in the spotlight again. [8] Abortion advertising is restricted in a dozen U.S. states. [9] Further, after Dobbs , several conservative states aim to impede all access to abortion by enacting criminal statutes for anyone who aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion. [10] Actionable conduct under these statutes might include any abortion services advertising – in-person, online, or in pamphlets. This is problematic considering Bigelow , which explicitly endorsed a right to convey abortion advertising services. [11] Although the Dobbs decision “returned to states the power to regulate access to abortion,” abortion-related commercial speech continues to “fall solidly within the realm of First Amendment-protected speech” under Bigelow . [12] However, if the issue were brought to the current majority-conservative Supreme Court, it is difficult to say with certainty that abortion-related commercial speech would remain constitutionally protected.

Constitutional Framework

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enjoins the Congress or a State legislature from making any laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” [13] While this protection is not absolute, a government regulation restricting free expression may be permitted when appropriate. [14] Truthful, factual information will always receive the highest degree of First Amendment protection. [15] Therefore, certain abortion-related speech, including the dissemination of factual information of abortion practices and policy, will be a constitutionally protected expression regardless of a state’s restrictive legislation.

Applying a framework known as the Central Hudson test, courts can regulate commercial speech under the First Amendment if “there is a substantial government interest that is directly advanced by the regulation, and if the regulation is not broader than necessary to achieve that goal.” [16] The outcome of a Central Hudson analysis to abortion-related commercial speech would depend on the jurisdiction, as each state has varying laws restricting this speech. However, courts have interpreted Bigelow to mean that “an activity is ‘lawful’ under the Central Hudson test so long as it is lawful where it will occur.” [17] This would mean that factual abortion-related commercial speech that is not misleading would likely satisfy the Central Hudson test.

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, state courts must respect the laws and judgments of courts from other states. [18] The Dobbs decision held that states have the power to regulate access to abortion. [19] Because abortion restrictions now vary by state, advertising an abortion may constitute a crime in one state when it is legal in another state. While there is currently no precedent of inciting abortion purely through speech, the issue will likely be decided in court in the near future to determine if abortion-related commercial speech may be construed as incitement of illegal activity. The Bigelow decision coupled with the Central Hudson test, should theoretically protect abortion-related commercial speech in any jurisdiction, even if the act of abortion is unlawful. [20]

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. [21] Republican Senators introduced a bill in September 2022 seeking to ban abortions fifteen weeks after pregnancy. [22] The bill’s sponsor maintains that congressional power to regulate abortion stems from the Commerce Clause. [23] If Congress acknowledges that abortion can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, Congress must subsequently acknowledge that abortion-related commercial speech is a constitutionally protected activity. Under the Commerce Clause, states may not impair interstate commerce; restrictions against abortion-related speech can and will negatively impact the trends of pregnant people seeking an abortion in another state.

Abortion-related commercial speech is further protected under universal human rights principles. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [24] In other words, the spoken and published speech of healthcare providers and advertisers is protected from interference from state legislation or anti-abortion activists because it is merely the dissemination of factual information. Restrictions to abortion-related commercial speech cannot be protected because they fail to advance a state’s interest in protecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Extraterritorial Advertising Restrictions

For decades, pregnant people have been traveling across state borders to access reproductive healthcare. [25] Whether it is because of proximity to an abortion-provider or due to a state’s restrictive access to abortion, pregnant people have the right to travel outside of their home state to obtain an abortion. [26] Further, a state may not, under the guise of exercising internal police powers, bar a citizen or organization of another State from disseminating information about an activity that is legal in that State. [27] All residents in the U.S. have a constitutional right to interstate travel. [28]

After the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade , opening the door for states to ban abortion, fourteen states have made abortion illegal. [29] Over a dozen states are actively seeking to restrict abortion access. [30] With these limitations in place, pregnant people in many states will now have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion. [31] Safe haven states, such as Kansas and Illinois, are seeing an increased demand in abortion care, largely from states with restrictive abortion bans. [32] Many states now seek criminal measures against their residents, or anyone aiding and abetting their residents, for traveling to another state to get an abortion. [33]

Not only have pregnant people been seeking abortion care in states outside of their own, but many have also begun traveling to Canada and Mexico for abortions. [34] Prime Minister Trudeau has made it clear that Canada is open to any American who may need to travel north to access an abortion. [35] Mexico’s recent decriminalization of abortion has “crystallize[d] the shifting policies of two nations that once held vastly different positions on the procedure.” [36] While international borders may be open to receive reproductive healthcare, pregnant people still face barriers, including long waitlists at clinics, increased travel expenses, medical fees, and the need for a passport. [37] Canadian and Mexican reproductive rights activists provide pregnant people in the U.S. virtual, safe guidance from trained professionals that may be far away. [38] Most pregnant people from the U.S. connect with clinics and reproductive rights groups abroad through social media or a referral. [39]

Due to increased interstate travel for abortion access, online advertising has risen to accommodate this growing demand. [40] In the wake of the Roe reversal, “people flocked to social media to share details about how to find and use abortion pills” and where to locate a clinic. [41] Courts will have to weigh in to determine the extent that social media and online outlets can be controlled in jurisdictions where abortion access is restricted. The complexity of online advertising, including location tracking and modes of speech, creates unprecedented challenges to the judicial system.

Human Rights Approach to Protecting Abortion-Related Commercial Speech

Freedom of information is not only a basic human right, but it also promotes healthy and safe abortions. Access to abortion-related commercial speech is particularly important to overcome the stigma and barriers to restrictive reproductive healthcare. [42] Potential pregnant people, including “adolescents, people of color, those living in rural area, those with low incomes, and incarcerated people” face the “disproportionate effects of restrictions to abortion access.” [43] Many pregnant people face complications during the course of their pregnancy that require medically-assisted termination to either remove a nonliving fetus or to save the life of the mother. [44] In cases such as these, it is necessary to protect abortion services advertising to ensure that pregnant people receive factual information and adequate care during difficult times. This information allows pregnant people to make informed decisions about their reproductive healthcare. We cannot begin to address issues of maternal and reproductive healthcare until stronger freedom of information policies are implemented. [45]

While freedom of information is necessary in and of itself, pregnant people should have access to evidence-based information. [46] There are two key components to ensure that information is evidence-based: lack of bias and scientifically accurate information. [47] In the reproductive health sector, there is significant misinformation relating to both regulatory frameworks and methods of abortion available. [48] Misinformation is often used intentionally to confuse, stigmatize, and dissuade pregnant people from considering abortion care or wanting to learn more about abortion. [49] Combating misinformation is essential to increasing the availability and acceptance of abortion-related commercial speech.

State and national health agencies can, in the interest of public health, work to ensure that abortion-related commercial speech that is disseminated is evidence-based. [50] In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) responded to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic by developing an international framework for health authorities on managing misinformation, facilitating an international agreement to improve access to accurate information, and providing guidelines for a public health research agenda. [51] Misinformation in the reproductive healthcare sector requires similar efforts by the U.S. This might include “partnerships with other nations facing attacks on reproductive rights and poor access to accurate information regarding maternal health broadly.” [52] The U.S. and its partners must focus specifically on “surveillance, impacts and health outcomes, health communication interventions, contextual factors influencing intervention efficacy, and preventive measures” to combat misinformation. [53] Medically accurate and evidence-based information is a basic human right, regardless of one’s view on abortion.

A final concern when protecting the abortion-related speech and reproductive healthcare of pregnant people is privacy. Privacy concerns have had a chilling effect on pregnant people seeking reproductive healthcare. [54] The Fourth Amendment secures the protection of individual’s privacy in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. [55] Further, the Supreme Court clarified that the Bill of Rights creates several zones that establish a right to privacy. [56] Recent abortion statutes in states like Texas and Oklahoma would require enhanced surveillance of residents to monitor compliance with abortion regulations. [57] In the wake of criminalizing abortion bans, the “Biden Administration proposed new privacy protections to prevent pregnant people’s health information from being used to investigate or sue people who obtain or facilitate abortions.” [58] Fears of criminal investigations have risen in abortion-banned states, among pregnant people, healthcare providers, insurers, or other entities involved in abortion care. [59] The proposed law amends the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule to include protections for reproductive healthcare. [60] Pregnant people not only have a right to receive healthcare information but they have a right to have their private information protected.

Abortion-related commercial speech is a protected freedom of expression under both case law precedent and the U.S. Constitution. Protecting our freedom of expression is instrumental to not only access abortion services but to access information about abortion and reproductive healthcare across the U.S. Abortion-related commercial speech is protected in any jurisdiction, even if the act of abortion is unlawful. The freedom to disseminate information about abortion services will promote the health of pregnant people regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or location. A holistic, human rights approach is necessary to ensure that abortion-related commercial speech remains a protected right.

[1] Bigelow v. Va. , 421 U.S. 809 (1975).

[2] Rose Mackenzie, Abortion is Our Right, and We Won’t Be Silenced , ACLU (Apr. 3, 2023) https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/abortion-is-our-right-and-we-wont-be-silenced [https://perma.cc/8XA2-SBMW].

[3] Id . at 822.

[4] Dessie Otachliska, Free Speech Post-Dobbs: The Constitutionality of State and Federal Restrictions on the Dissemination of Abortion-Related Information , N.Y.U. J. Legis & Pub. Pol’y Quorum (2023).

[5] Bigelow , supra note 1.

[6] Id . at 821 (citing Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm’n , 413 U.S. 376 (1973)).

[7] Id . at 822.

[8] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022).

[9] Abortion Advertising Restrictions , The Policy Surveillance Program, LawAtlas (November 2022), https://lawatlas.org/datasets/abortion-advertising-restrictions [https://perma.cc/M88H-ZLCP].

[10] H.B. 4327, 58th Leg., 2d Sess. (Okla. 2022) (enacted); S.B. 8, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021) (enacted); see also After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State , Centre for Reproductive Rights, https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/ [https://perma.cc/J6TL-5PNV].

[11] John Villaseor, Can a state block access to online information about abortion services? , Brookings (July 27, 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-a-state-block-access-to-online-information-about-abortion-services/ [https://perma.cc/TG82-3SF7].

[13] U.S. Const. amend I.

[14] See Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925); Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 360 (1976).

[15] See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n , 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010).

[16] Central Hudson Gaw & Elec. v. Public Svc. Comm’n , 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

[17] City of Worcester , 851 F. Supp. at 315 (citing Katt v. Dykhouse , 983 F.2d 690, 696 (6th Cir. 1992); Wash. Mercantile Ass’n v. Williams , 733 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Coyote Publ’g, Inc. v. Miller , 598 F.3d 592, 607 (9th Cir. 2010).

[18] U.S. Const. art IV, § 1.

[19] Dobbs , supra note 8.

[20] Bigelow , supra note 1; Central Hudson , supra note 16. See also , Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444, 447 for a test the Supreme Court uses to recognize if an expression is likely to incite imminent illegal activity.

[21] U.S. Const. art 1, § 8, cl. 3.

[22] S. 4840, 117th Cong. § 2 (2021-2022).

[24] U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 19.

[25] Bigelow , supra note 1.

[26] Id . at 824

[27] Id . at 824-25.

[28] U.S. Const art. IV; see also Dobbs , supra note 8 (Kavanagh J, concurring).

[29] After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State , supra note 10.

[30] Id .; see also Press Release, National Right to Life Committee Proposes Legislation to Protect the Unborn Post-Roe , NRLC (Jun. 15, 2022), https://www.nrlc.org/communications/national-right-to-life-committee-proposes-legislation-to-protect-the-unborn-post-roe/ [https://perma.cc/D5BM-JWRL].

[31] Remaking America: Crossing State Lines for Abortion Care , NPR (May 11, 2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/05/11/1175530713/remaking-america-crossing-state-lines-for-abortion-care; see also Elevated Access (describing the ways that patients and advocates are crossing borders to receive an abortions and gender-affirming care).

[32] Remaking America, id .

[33] See Remaking America , id ; see also , H.B. 4327 and S.B. 8, supra note 10.

[34] Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Edyra Espriella, A New Border Crossing: Americans Turn to Mexico for Abortions , N.Y. Times (Sept. 25, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/world/americas/mexico-abortion-women-border.html [https://perma.cc/7BC4-FZSB]; Andy Blatchford, Canada is open to Americans who may lose access to abortions , but there’s a catch , Politico (May 5, 2022), https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/canada-americans-access-abortions [https://perma.cc/YB3P-BQUK].

[35] Blatchford, id .

[36] Kanno-Youngs and Espriella, supra note 34.

[37] Blatchford, supra note 34.

[38] Blatchford, supra note 34; María Teresa Hernández, Activists’ network in Mexico helps U.S. women get abortions , AP News (Apr. 2, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-bans-mexico-us-border [https://perma.cc/H7AS-NYYZ]. See also , ECHR, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, App. No 14234/88 (discussing the history of extraterritorial travel from Ireland to Great Britain to obtain an abortion and the protections of abortion-related commercial speech in the European Union.).

[39] Hernández, id .

[40] Mackenzie, supra note 2.

[41] Megan Burbank, Abortion Activists Rely on Social Media More Than Ever After Roe—and That Has Risks , The New Republic (Sept. 29, 2022), https://newrepublic.com/article/167886/abortion-funds-roe-dobbs-social-media [https://perma.cc/8ZGE-EFXP].

[43] ACOG Committee Opinion, Increasing Access to Abortion, 136(6) Obstetrics & Gynecology e107 (Dec. 2020); see also, Access to Abortion is a Human Right , Human Rights Watch (Jun 24, 2022) https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/24/qa-access-abortion-human-right (“Unsafe abortions is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity” around the world.).

[44] Lemmers, et. al., Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks) , 6(6) Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (Jun. 17, 2019).

[45] Human Rights Watch supra note 43.

[46] Addressing Barriers to Safe Abortion , International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (Sept. 2021) https://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/FIGO_Statement_Addressing_Barriers_to_Safe_Abortion_EN.pdf

[47] Lucía Berro Pizzarossa and Patty Skuster, Toward Human Rights and Evidence-Based Legal Frameworks for (Self-Managed) Abortion , 23(1) Health Hum. Rights 199 (Jun. 2021).

[49] Facts Are Important: Identifying and Combating Abortion Myths and Misinformation , ACOG (2023), https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/identifying-combating-abortion-myths-misinformation [https://perma.cc/NPZ3-PJPB].

[50] Sarah C.M. Roberts, et al., A 21st-Century Public Health Approach to Abortion , 107(12) Am. J. Pub. Health 1878 (Dec. 2017).

[51] World Health Organization (WHO), Infodemic , https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1 [https://perma.cc/P6M8-3LAW].

[52] Pagoto, et al., The Next Infodemic: Abortion Misinformation , 25 J. Med. Internet Res. (May 2023).

[54] Jarrett Renshaw and Ahmed Aboulenein, New Biden rule seeks to protect women crossing state lines for abortions , Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-abortion-rule-seeks-protect-women-crossing-state-lines-2023-04-12/ [https://perma.cc/VX9A-BQ4W].

[55] U.S. Const. amend IV, supra note 18.

[56] Griswold v. Conn ., 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

[57] See e.g. , H.B. 4327 and S.B. 8, supra note 10.

[58] Renshaw and Aboulenein, supra note 54.

[60] HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy, 88 FR 23506 (Apr. 17, 2023).

Shannon Conroy

Book Review: The Undocumented Americans

“I asked almost everyone I interviewed…about their regrets, but…[t]hat’s not what we’ll remember when we have to leave, by choice, force, or […]

On Lebanon and the Extension of Universal Human Rights for LGBT+ People

In the summer of 2019, an annual music and arts festival held in Byblos, Lebanon, cancelled a concert by the band Mashrou’ […]

Asylum Seekers in Australia and the Government’s Continued “Crimes Against Humanity”

Almost three years after Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court ruled that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was unlawful as […]

United States v. Rahimi in a Human Rights Lense: The Supreme Court’s Opportunity to Remedy Its Stance on Gender-Based Violence

I. Introduction The case of United States v Rahmi is a case that is at the intersection of constitutional interpretation and the […]

How To Talk About Abortion

We know that the best way to change hearts and minds is to have open and honest conversations with people who know and love us, and remind them of the values we share. 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. Stigma is the result of decades of public rhetoric that labels abortion “bad.” It shuts down conversations and makes people feel like they cannot share their experiences without being judged. 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 chang e the narrative 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. If you’re planning to tell your story or share the reasons you support abortion access, here are some ways to prepare:

STEP 1. PREPARE YOUR "WHY"

To fight back against institutions banning abortion, it’s important to lift up the voices of the people most affected — particularly people with low incomes and communities for whom structural racism has created longstanding barriers to abortion access, such as Black, Indigenous, and Latino people. Most likely, the reason you want to have these conversations about abortion is because of your own experiences. 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. Maybe you just want the ability to decide if or when you want to be a parent without any say from the government.

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 people we know and trust. Here are a few different groups to consider speaking with about abortion:

Members of a club/volunteer team/church
Social media followers/mutuals
Fitness groups

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 normalize the topic of abortion for people. 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 - Get into conversation

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

“Hi ___, did you know that abortion is fully banned in about a dozen states? That means people who need an abortion in those states are forced to travel hundreds of miles to access basic health care. But not everyone has the money, time to take off work, child care, or transportation to do that.

“____, I really care about access to safe, legal abortion, and I'm really scared now that states can ban abortion, and many are. 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. Don’t make assumptions or judgments on the person’s beliefs. Try to understand their point of view. Ask them questions like: “Tell me more about that” or “How does that make you feel?”

Find common ground with your shared values. How people feel about abortion is based on their values and their experiences with pregnancy, parenting, and planning their future.

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. People value personal freedom and having control to make their own decisions for themselves. Abortion is a personal decision.

Being vulnerable 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.

Don’t frame abortion as just a women's issue: this doesn't represent the trans, nonbinary and gender nonconforming people who can get pregnant. And everyone, regardless of gender, is harmed by abortion bans.

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.

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.

Selena Gomez Broke a Longstanding Fashion Rule at Cannes and Looked Amazing Doing It

By Emily Tannenbaum

By Lauren Murdoch-Smith

Jennifer Lopez’s Coral Swimsuit Is the Perfect Mix of Playful and Practical

By The Glamour editors

We cannot stay silent.

By Talia Abbas

There’s Now a Cheaper Way to (Legally) Stream Friends and Gossip Girl

By Elizabeth Logan

By Astro All-Starz

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.

A black-and-white photo of a protester silhouetted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court

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.

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.

New Hampshire
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Online hoaxes
Coronavirus
Health Care
Immigration
Environment
Foreign Policy
Kamala Harris
Donald Trump
Mitch McConnell
Hakeem Jeffries
Ron DeSantis
Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
Rachel Maddow
PolitiFact Videos
2024 Elections
Mostly True
Mostly False
Pants on Fire
Biden Promise Tracker
Trump-O-Meter
Latest Promises
Our Process
Who pays for PolitiFact?
Advertise with Us
Suggest a Fact-check
Corrections and Updates
Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term abortion ‘ban’.

Legal Issues
Public Health

A supporter holds up a sign during Missourians for Constitutionals Freedom petition drive on Feb. 6, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP)

Ban: Merriam-Webster defines it as "a legal or formal prohibition." But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion, was overturned — the term has morphed into polarizing political rhetoric. "Ban" has become synonymous with abortion and the wave of anti-abortion laws enacted in states across the country. For example, on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign website, the abortion policy page’s title reads: "Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide. Re-elect Joe Biden to stop him and protect reproductive freedom."

Trump appointed three of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe. After years of inconsistency, Trump most recently has said that laws on abortion should be left to the states and that he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban. Many Democrats and abortion rights activists have also zeroed in on down-ballot Republicans, accusing them of supporting abortion "bans," even if their positions allow for some access.

"Yesterday, we celebrated Mother’s Day. Today, I remind you that politicians like Bernie Moreno, who supports a national abortion ban, don’t want moms making their own healthcare decisions. Abortion rights are on Ohio's ballot again in 2024," Ohio Democrat Allison Russo wrote May 13 on X .

Moreno, who has Trump’s support, is a Republican running for Senate in Ohio against Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Moreno has said that he would vote for a 15-week national abortion ban.

Political discourse experts say "ban" has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term, nuanced in its myriad interpretations, often leaves room for political spin.

"Ban" is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently.

The word has two main rhetorical functions, political discourse experts said. When people talk to like-minded people about a particular issue, it can reinforce the group’s beliefs. Or, it can label opponents as "extreme."

"For example, when Joe Biden talks about an assault weapon ban, he’s not trying to convert skeptics — he’s signaling to people who already agree with them that they’re on the same team," said Ryan Skinnell, an associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San Jose State University. "But the other way ‘ban’ works is to identify someone you disagree with as extreme. Groups who want to keep certain books out of libraries, for instance, rarely describe themselves as in support of book banning. Their opponents adopt that language."

This dual usage reflects in the abortion fight. Abortion-rights activists use "ban" to signal an infringement on personal freedom and autonomy over medical decisions. Anti-abortion proponents may use "ban" to signal a protection of fetal life. For example, when introducing legislation that bans abortion at various stages, Republican politicians have often framed the bills as moral imperatives that protect unborn life.

Peter Loge, a George Washington University professor who directs the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, said ban has historically meant "to eliminate" or "not have," but politicians employ a strategic ambiguity that allows listeners to assign their own meaning. Loge, who served as a senior adviser in former President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, said Obama did this with one of his campaign slogans: "Change We Can Believe In."

"Well, what does ‘change’ mean? Clearly, it means whatever he thinks it means, but as a listener you will ascribe it to mean whatever you think it means," Loge said. "So, if I think most abortions should be illegal and in some cases it's OK, I can support a ban, because it's a ban with exceptions. The listener plugs in whatever caveats they prefer and ascribes them to the speaker. This is a technique as far back as Aristotle, who wrote that the listener provides the reasoning for themselves."

Loge, like Skinnell, said "ban" is often used in politics to showcase extremism and the threat of something being taken away.

"It’s the rhetoric of anger. ‘They want to take your rights from you. … Now it’s an ideological divide and it works because we’re going to be more motivated to vote," Loge said. "People are more concerned about losing something they have than they are interested in getting something new. We are risk-averse." Nathan Stormer, a rhetoric professor at the University of Maine and an expert in abortion rhetoric, said the term usually shows up when people refer to making abortion illegal in pregnancy’s earlier stages. But, he added, although common usage typically refers to a first trimester threshold, there is "no set of rules."

"Because it is not a consistently used term, I think when people do not specify what they are referring to, others may take them to mean at conception or very early, but one has to inquire about context," Stormer wrote in an email.

Before the 1970s, there was little discussion about abortion bans. Although legal abortion existed in various states at various stages before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, the ruling’s enshrinement of abortion rights across the country, helped galvanize opposition and mobilize anti-abortion groups. "There were book bans, pornography bans, dancing bans, and so on. But even most conservative politicians and church groups weren’t especially concerned with abortion as an issue, and there was virtually no concerted political interest in bans," Skinnell, from San Jose University, said. "That began to change with Richard Nixon." Skinnell said the former president’s advisers, in coordination with evangelical Christian church leaders, determined they could connect abortion to left-wing social movements, such as feminism, by linking them consistently in speeches and campaign materials.

"The idea of abortion bans came directly out of that partnership," Skinnell said, "and it gathered steam in right-wing and conservative circles throughout the next few decades." Republicans further popularized the term in the mid-1990s, when they advocated for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003. The campaign to pass that legislation, experts said, introduced the term "ban" as the abortion restriction’s "stated intent."

Political rhetoric experts said much of the medical literature and media coverage before Roe v. Wade often used terms such as "illegal" because abortion was considered a criminal act in most states.

"Even in the early stages of criminalizing abortion in the U.S., I don't think ban was a common term," Stormer said. "When a restriction is being put in place where before there was not one, people tend to resort to the word ban."

Emily Winderman, a University of Minnesota professor specializing in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, said that over time abortion "bans" have manifested as "incremental" restrictions throughout gestational development to the complete prohibitions seen in multiple states today.

For instance, she said, "heartbeat bills," which typically refer to laws that make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy, were controversial when they emerged around 2010, but have become more prevalent since the Trump administration and Roe’s overturning.

Winderman also said bans can appear via code and ordinance restrictions, such as banning the type of use for a particular piece of real estate — making abortion clinics impossible to place.

"It's important to understand bans as a complex strategy that includes gestational limits as well as limitations on who can provide care and where," she said.

Shifting abortion laws across the U.S. have made "ban" an increasingly common term. Forty-one states now ban abortion at different points in pregnancy — 14 enforce total bans, three enforce six-week bans and others restrict abortion before fetal viability.

Stormer, from the University of Maine, pointed to Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstating an 1864 law that completely banned abortion. (It has since been repealed. ) At the time the law was written, conception was not well understood, and there was no clear sense of fertilization or how it worked.

"Reinstating that law was a great example of how the conflict over abortion has remained steady and largely recognizable, but its terms and understandings have been constantly moving, which says something," Stormer said. "So, specific words do important work, but they do not capture what is happening rhetorically, in my opinion. The moving terminologies are the waves crashing, but the tides are the thing."

RELATED: The top claims about abortion, fact-checked

RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working?

Our Sources

JoeBiden.com, Abortion , Accessed May 13, 2024

X post , May 13, 2024

X post , May 10, 2024

Politico, Trump said it’s up to the states to decide abortion. Here’s everything else he didn’t say , April 9, 2024

WBUR, The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate , June 28, 2010

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Rhetorical strategies for retrieving abortion rights , September 2022

Merriam-Webster, Ban definition and meaning, Accessed May 1, 2024

Justia.com, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health, A Brief History of Abortion in the U.S. , 2022

Guttmacher Institute, State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy , Updated May 1, 2024

Email interview, Emily Winderman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, April 15, 2024

Email interview, Nathan Stormer, rhetoric professor and expert in abortion rhetoric at the University of Maine, May 6, 2024

Email interview, Ryan Skinnell, associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San José State University, May 10, 2024

Phone interview, Peter Loge,a professor at George Washington University and director of the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, May 10, 2024

Email interview, Lisa Corrigan, professor of communication at the University of Arkansas, May 13, 2023

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by samantha putterman.

Ethics & Leadership
Fact-Checking
Media Literacy
The Craig Newmark Center
Reporting & Editing
Ethics & Trust
Tech & Tools
Business & Work
Educators & Students
Training Catalog
Custom Teaching
For ACES Members
All Categories
Broadcast & Visual Journalism
Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
In-newsroom
Memphis, Tenn.
Minneapolis, Minn.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Washington, D.C.
Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
Ethics & Trust Articles
Get Ethics Advice
Fact-Checking Articles
International Fact-Checking Day
Teen Fact-Checking Network
International
Media Literacy Training
MediaWise Resources
Ambassadors
MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term abortion ‘ban’

Experts say ‘ban’ has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. the blunt term often leaves room for political spin..

Ban: Merriam-Webster defines it as “a legal or formal prohibition.”

But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion, was overturned — the term has morphed into polarizing political rhetoric. “Ban” has become synonymous with abortion and the wave of anti-abortion laws enacted in states across the country.

For example, on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign website, the abortion policy page’s title reads: “Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide. Re-elect Joe Biden to stop him and protect reproductive freedom.”

Many Democrats and abortion rights activists have also zeroed in on down-ballot Republicans, accusing them of supporting abortion “bans,” even if their position allows for some access.

“Yesterday, we celebrated Mother’s Day. Today, I remind you that politicians like Bernie Moreno, who supports a national abortion ban, don’t want moms making their own healthcare decisions. Abortion rights are on Ohio’s ballot again in 2024,” Ohio Democrat Allison Russo wrote May 13 on X .

Moreno, who has Trump’s support, is a Republican running for Senate in Ohio against Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Moreno has said that he would vote for a 15-week national abortion ban.

Political discourse experts say “ban” has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term, nuanced in its myriad interpretations, often leaves room for political spin.

What exactly is a ban?

“Ban” is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently.

“For example, when Joe Biden talks about an assault weapon ban, he’s not trying to convert skeptics — he’s signaling to people who already agree with them that they’re on the same team,” said Ryan Skinnell, an associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San Jose State University. “But the other way ‘ban’ works is to identify someone you disagree with as extreme. Groups who want to keep certain books out of libraries, for instance, rarely describe themselves as in support of book banning. Their opponents adopt that language.”

This dual usage reflects in the abortion fight. Abortion-rights activists use “ban” to signal an infringement on personal freedom and autonomy over medical decisions. Anti-abortion proponents may use “ban” to signal a protection of fetal life. For example, when introducing legislation that ban abortion at various stages, Republican politicians have often framed the bills as moral imperatives that protect unborn life.

Peter Loge, a George Washington University professor who directs the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, said ban has historically meant “to eliminate” or “not have,” but politicians employ a strategic ambiguity that allows listeners to assign their own meaning. Loge, who served as a senior adviser in former President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, said Obama did this with one of his campaign slogans: “Change We Can Believe In.”

“Well, what does ‘change’ mean? Clearly, it means whatever he thinks it means, but as a listener you will ascribe it to mean whatever you think it means,” Loge said. “So, if I think most abortions should be illegal and in some cases it’s OK, I can support a ban, because it’s a ban with exceptions. The listener plugs in whatever caveats they prefer and ascribes them to the speaker. This is a technique as far back as Aristotle, who wrote that the listener provides the reasoning for themselves.”

Loge, like Skinnell, said “ban” is often used in politics to showcase extremism and the threat of something being taken away.

“It’s the rhetoric of anger. ‘They want to take your rights from you. … Now it’s an ideological divide and it works because we’re going to be more motivated to vote,” Loge said. “People are more concerned about losing something they have than they are interested in getting something new. We are risk-averse.”

Nathan Stormer, a rhetoric professor at the University of Maine and an expert in abortion rhetoric, said the term usually shows up when people refer to making abortion illegal in pregnancy’s earlier stages. But, he added, although common usage typically refers to a first trimester threshold, there is “no set of rules.”

“Because it is not a consistently used term, I think when people do not specify what they are referring to, others may take them to mean at conception or very early, but one has to inquire about context,” Stormer wrote in an email.

How abortion ban rhetoric evolved

Before the 1970s, there was little discussion about abortion bans.

Although legal abortion existed in various states at various stages before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, the ruling’s enshrinement of abortion rights across the country, helped galvanize opposition and mobilize anti-abortion groups.

“There were book bans, pornography bans, dancing bans, and so on. But even most conservative politicians and church groups weren’t especially concerned with abortion as an issue, and there was virtually no concerted political interest in bans,” Skinnell, from San Jose University, said. “That began to change with Richard Nixon.”

Skinnell said the former president’s advisers, in coordination with evangelical Christian church leaders, determined they could connect abortion to left-wing social movements, such as feminism, by linking them consistently in speeches and campaign materials.

“The idea of abortion bans came directly out of that partnership,” Skinnell said, “and it gathered steam in right-wing and conservative circles throughout the next few decades.”

Republicans further popularized the term in the mid-1990s, when they advocated for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003. The campaign to pass that legislation, experts said, introduced the term “ban” as the abortion restriction’s “stated intent.”

Political rhetoric experts said much of the medical literature and media coverage before Roe v. Wade often used terms such as “illegal” because abortion was considered a criminal act in most states.

“Even in the early stages of criminalizing abortion in the U.S., I don’t think ban was a common term,” Stormer said. “When a restriction is being put in place where before there was not one, people tend to resort to the word ban.”

Emily Winderman, a University of Minnesota professor specializing in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, said that over time abortion “bans” have manifested as “incremental” restrictions throughout gestational development to the complete prohibitions seen in multiple states today.

For instance, she said, “heartbeat bills,” which typically refer to laws that make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy, were controversial when they emerged around 2010, but have become more prevalent since the Trump administration and Roe’s overturning.

Winderman also said bans can appear via code and ordinance restrictions, such as banning the type of use for a particular piece of real estate — making abortion clinics impossible to place.

“It’s important to understand bans as a complex strategy that includes gestational limits as well as limitations on who can provide care and where,” she said.

Shifting abortion laws across the U.S. have made “ban” an increasingly common term. Forty-one states now ban abortion at different points in pregnancy — 14 enforce total bans, three enforce six-week bans and others restrict abortion before fetal viability.

“Reinstating that law was a great example of how the conflict over abortion has remained steady and largely recognizable, but its terms and understandings have been constantly moving, which says something,” Stormer said. “So, specific words do important work, but they do not capture what is happening rhetorically, in my opinion. The moving terminologies are the waves crashing, but the tides are the thing.”

This fact check was originally published by PolitiFact , which is part of the Poynter Institute. See the sources for this fact check here .

Opinion | We’re set for the presidential debates. Now what?

The first debate is set for June 27, much earlier than usual. It will appear on CNN. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate.

The World Health Organization’s pandemic plan won’t end free speech

A draft of the WHO’s pandemic accord says that the document will be used with respect to individual’s personal freedoms

Nobel Prize winner Maria Ressa, experts on democracy and AI to lead GlobalFact as keynote speakers

Other speakers at the fact-checking summit include Steve Levitsky, Nikita Roy and Craig Silverman

Opinion | Q&A: Fox News foreign correspondent Trey Yingst on the perils of covering war

Yingst, 30, has spent the past several years in some of the most dangerous places in the world.

Opinion | Planning a town hall with candidates? Try a reverse town hall instead.

They spend so much time talking. It’s their turn to listen.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

Share full article

Supported by

guest essay

Is There a Constitutional Right to Talk About Abortion?

A woman peering over a barrier with an empty speech bubble coming out of her mouth.

By Linda Greenhouse

Ms. Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.

There has hardly ever been as fierce a defender of free speech as the current Supreme Court.

Since John Roberts became chief justice almost 19 years ago, the court has expanded the protective net of the First Amendment to cover such activities as selling videos depicting animal torture, spending unlimited amounts of money in support of political candidates and refusing to pay dues (or a dues-like fee) to a public employee union.

This last decision, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, overturned a 41-year-old precedent and led a dissenting justice, Elena Kagan, to accuse the majority of “weaponizing the First Amendment.” In the 303 Creative case last year, the court gave a Christian web designer the First Amendment right not to do business with would-be customers whose same-sex wedding websites would violate her views about marriage.

The court’s version of free speech has become a powerful tool against government regulation. Six years ago, effectively striking down a California law, the court gave so-called crisis pregnancy centers — offices that try to imitate abortion clinics but strive to persuade women to continue their pregnancies — a First Amendment right not to provide information on where a woman could actually get an abortion. The state said the notice was needed to help women who came to such centers under the false impression that they provided abortions. In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the “unduly burdensome” requirement amounted to unconstitutionally compelled speech.

Now the question is whether the court’s solicitude toward those who would rather not talk about abortion extends in the other direction. What about state laws that prohibit rather than require offering information about where to get an abortion?

While there is not yet such a case on the Supreme Court’s docket, lower courts have been tightening a First Amendment noose around efforts by anti-abortion states to curb the flow of information about how to obtain legal abortion care across state lines. Federal District Courts in Indiana and Alabama both ruled this month that while states in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s demise can ban abortion, they cannot make it illegal to give abortion-related advice, including advice to minors seeking abortions without parental consent.

A federal magistrate judge issued a similar ruling last November on Idaho’s abortion law, one of the most extreme in the country, which makes it a crime to assist a minor in obtaining an abortion in any state without a parent’s consent. Idaho could criminalize abortion, the judge, Debora Grasham, wrote. “What the state cannot do,” she went on, “is craft a statute muzzling the speech and expressive activities of a particular viewpoint with which the state disagrees under the guise of parental rights.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard Idaho’s appeal on May 7.

With the Supreme Court extremely unlikely to revisit its decision 23 months ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that eradicated the constitutional right to abortion, the question of how far states can go to prevent their citizens from finding alternative ways to terminate a pregnancy will become increasingly urgent. In his concurring opinion in the Dobbs case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question of whether a state could now “bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion.” The answer was “no,” he continued, “based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” It is worth noting that Justice Kavanaugh wrote only for himself; none of the other conservatives who made up the Dobbs majority joined him. “Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh offered noncommittally.

The future arrived quickly enough in the form of the two abortion-related cases awaiting decision before the court’s current term, which concludes at the end of June or in early July. Both are anomalous in that they involve questions of federal rather than state authority.

One, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine , concerns the government’s approval of the expanded use of the medication that first received F.D.A. approval 24 years ago. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of abortions in the United States. The case contains an off-ramp for the court that, based on the argument in March, the justices appear likely to take: Because the anti-abortion doctors, dentists and medical groups who challenged the F.D.A. suffered no harm from the availability of the medication, and are unlikely to suffer harm in the future, they never had standing to bring the case in the first place.

The other, Moyle v. United States, results from a clash between the federal government and Idaho over whether federal law requires the state to provide emergency abortion care in its hospitals. The outcome largely depends on whether the court accepts the Biden administration’s view that there is no abortion exception to the law at issue, which prohibits hospitals from turning away people who need emergency care.

In the abortion cases in Indiana, Idaho and Alabama that may yet find their way to the Supreme Court, the justices would face the acute dilemma of reconciling their fealty to the First Amendment with the profound anti-abortion sentiment the Dobbs majority opinion displayed.

In defending their laws, the states argue that what they are prohibiting is not actually speech but conduct, namely inducing criminal activity. Rejecting this argument in the Indiana case, Judge Sarah Evans Barker of Federal District Court wrote that the Planned Parenthood affiliate that challenged the law simply “seeks to provide truthful information to clients regarding out-of-state options and medical referrals to out-of-state providers for abortion services that are legal in those states.” A prohibition on providing such information, the judge said, “does not further any interest Indiana may have in investigating criminal conduct within its borders.” In the Alabama case, another Federal District Court judge, Myron Thompson, observed that “unable to proscribe out-of-state abortions, the attorney general interprets state law as punishing the speech necessary to obtain them.”

From the cases they are in the process of deciding this term, the justices are well aware that their effort to wash their hands of the nettlesome business of abortion has failed. One or more of the First Amendment cases is likely to reach the court during its next term. I wonder if the justices have a clue about how much pain lies ahead when they have to decide whether the right to speak inevitably encompasses the right to choose.

Linda Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.

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 .

MJC Library & Learning Center
Research Guides
Abortion Research

Start Learning About Your Topic

Create research questions to focus your topic, featured current news, find articles in library databases, find web resources, find books in the library catalog, cite your sources, key search words.

Use the words below to search for useful information in books and articles .

birth control
pro-choice movement
pro-life movement
reproductive rights
Roe v. Wade
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs v. Jackson)

Background Reading:

It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic.

This step is important so that you will:

Begin building your core knowledge about your topic
Be able to put your topic in context
Create research questions that drive your search for information
Create a list of search terms that will help you find relevant information
Know if the information you’re finding is relevant and useful

If you're working from off campus , you'll be prompted to sign in if you aren't already logged in to your MJC email or Canvas. If you are prompted to sign in, use the same credentials you use for email and Canvas.

Most current background reading

Issues and Controversies: Should Women in the United States Have Access to Abortion? June 2022 article (written after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade) that explores both sides of the abortion debate.
Access World News: Abortion The most recent news and opinion on abortion from US newspapers.

More sources for background information

CQ Researcher Online This link opens in a new window Original, comprehensive reporting and analysis on issues in the news. Check the dates of results to be sure they are sufficiently current.
Gale eBooks This link opens in a new window Authoritative background reading from specialized encyclopedias (a year or more old, so not good for the latest developments).
Gale In Context: Global Issues This link opens in a new window Best database for exploring the topic from a global point of view.

Choose the questions below that you find most interesting or appropriate for your assignment.

Why is abortion such a controversial issue?
What are the medical arguments for and against abortion?
What are the religious arguments for and against abortion?
What are the political arguments for and against abortion?
What are the cultural arguments for and against abortion?
What is the history of laws concerning abortion?
What are the current laws about abortion?
How are those who oppose access to abortion trying to affect change?
How are those who support access to abortion trying to affect change?
Based on what I have learned from my research, what do I think about the issue of abortion?
State-by-State Abortion Laws Updated regularly by the Guttmacher Institute
What the Data Says About Abortion in the U.S. From the Pew Research Center in June 2022, a look at the most recent available data about abortion from sources other than public opinion surveys.

Latest News on Abortion from Google News

All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.

Gale Databases This link opens in a new window Search over 35 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. Gale databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
EBSCOhost Databases This link opens in a new window Search 22 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. EBSCO databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
Facts on File Databases This link opens in a new window Facts on File databases include: Issues & Controversies , Issues & Controversies in History , Today's Science , and World News Digest .
MEDLINE Complete This link opens in a new window This database provides access to top-tier biomedical and health journals, making it an essential resource for doctors, nurses, health professionals and researchers engaged in clinical care, public health, and health policy development.
Access World News This link opens in a new window Search the full-text of editions of record for local, regional, and national U.S. newspapers as well as full-text content of key international sources. This is your source for The Modesto Bee from January 1989 to the present. Also includes in-depth special reports and hot topics from around the country. To access The Modesto Bee , limit your search to that publication. more... less... Watch this short video to learn how to find The Modesto Bee .

Browse Featured Web Sites:

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Medical information and anti-abortion rights advocacy.
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Use the key term "abortion" in the search box on this site for links to reports and statistics.
Guttmacher Institute Statistics and policy papers with a world-wide focus from a "research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide."
NARAL Pro-Choice America This group advocates for pro-abortion rights legislation. Current information abortion laws in the U.S.
National Right to Life Committee This group advocates for anti-abortion rights legislation in the U.S.

Why Use Books:

Use books to read broad overviews and detailed discussions of your topic. You can also use books to find primary sources , which are often published together in collections.

Where Do I Find Books?

You'll use the library catalog to search for books, ebooks, articles, and more.

What if MJC Doesn't Have What I Need?

If you need materials (books, articles, recordings, videos, etc.) that you cannot find in the library catalog , use our interlibrary loan service .

Your instructor should tell you which citation style they want you to use. Click on the appropriate link below to learn how to format your paper and cite your sources according to a particular style.

Chicago Style
ASA & Other Citation Styles
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:28 PM
URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/abortion

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .

Election 2024
Entertainment
Newsletters
Photography
Personal Finance
AP Investigations
AP Buyline Personal Finance
AP Buyline Shopping
Press Releases
Israel-Hamas War
Russia-Ukraine War
Global elections
Asia Pacific
Latin America
Middle East
Election Results
Delegate Tracker
AP & Elections
Auto Racing
2024 Paris Olympic Games
Movie reviews
Book reviews
Personal finance
Financial Markets
Business Highlights
Financial wellness
Artificial Intelligence
Social Media

Why the speech by Kansas City Chiefs kicker was embraced at Benedictine College’s commencement

The Benedictine College sign is seen Wednesday, May 15, 2024, in Atchison, Kan., days after Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker gave a commencement speech that has been gaining attention. Butker’s speech has raised some eyebrows with his proclamations of conservative politics and Catholicism, but he received a standing ovation from graduates and other attendees of the commencement ceremony on Saturday, May 11. (AP Photo/Nick Ingram)

Students leave after attending a Catholic Mass at Benedictine College Sunday, Dec. 3, 2023, in Atchison, Kan. Students told The Associated Press in interviews they embrace the college’s emphasis on Catholic teaching and practice. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

FILE - Catholics pray during Mass at Benedictine College Sunday, Dec. 3, 2023, in Atchison, Kan. Enrollment, now about 2,200, has doubled in 20 years. Some 85% of its students are Catholic, according to the Cardinal Newman Society. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

The campus at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kan., was quiet on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, days after Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker gave a commencement speech that was getting attention. Butker’s speech has raised some eyebrows with his proclamations of conservative politics and Catholicism during his weekend speech, but he received a standing ovation from graduates and other attendees of the commencement ceremony on Saturday, May 11. (AP Photo/Nick Ingram)

Copy Link copied

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker may have stirred controversy in some quarters for his proclamations of conservative politics and Catholicism on Saturday, but he received a standing ovation from graduates and other attendees of the May 11 commencement ceremony at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.

The fast-growing college is part of a constellation of conservative Catholic colleges that tout their adherence to church teachings and practice — part of a larger conservative movement in parts of the U.S. Catholic Church.

Butker’s 20-minute speech hit several cultural flashpoints.

Butker, a conservative Catholic himself, dismissed Pride month as consisting of the “deadly sin sort of pride” while denouncing abortion and President Joe Biden’s handling of the pandemic. He said women are told “diabolical lies” about career ambition when “one of the most important titles of all” is that of homemaker. He said this is not time for “the church of nice” and in particular blasted Catholics who support abortion rights and “dangerous gender ideologies.”

WHAT IS BENEDICTINE COLLEGE?

Benedictine College is a Catholic college in Atchison, Kansas, that traces its roots to 1858. It is located about 60 miles north of Kansas City., and has an enrollment of about 2,200.

FILE - Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker speaks to the media during NFL football Super Bowl 58 opening night Monday, Feb. 5, 2024, in Las Vegas. Butker railed against Pride month along with President Biden’s leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and his stance on abortion during a commencement address at Benedictine College last weekend. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

LOTS OF COLLEGES ARE CATHOLIC. WHAT MAKES IT DISTINCTIVE?

In some ways, Benedictine College sounds like a typical Catholic college. Its “mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship,” according to its website.

But its home to more traditional expressions of Catholicism, such as the Latin Mass, all-night prayer vigils and a strict code of conduct. Its mission statement further cites its commitment to “those specific matters of faith of the Roman Catholic tradition, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and handed down in the teachings of the Church.”

The school gets a high ranking from the Cardinal Newman Society, a group that touts nearly two-dozen conservative colleges that exhibit what it calls “faithful Catholic education.” That includes upholding church teachings and Catholic identity while providing ample Masses and other devotional activities in shaping their students.

The society seeks to differentiate schools that “refuse to compromise their Catholic mission” from those that have become “battlegrounds for today’s culture wars.” Others praised by the society include Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., Ave Maria University in Florida and Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.

The society’s ranking says Benedictine benefits from having monks in residence, multiple Masses and prayer groups, spiritually focused organizations and theology programs with professors with a “mandatum” of approval from the local bishop.

HOW HAS THAT RESONATED WITH STUDENTS?

Benedictine’s enrollment has doubled in the past 20 years. Some 85% of its students are Catholic, according to the Cardinal Newman Society.

Students told The Associated Press in interviews they embrace the college’s emphasis on Catholic teaching and practice.

“It’s a renewal of, like, some really, really good things that we might have lost,” one student told the AP in its recent article on the revival of conservative Catholicism.

OTHER FACTS

Annual tuition for full-time undergraduates is $35,350, but Benedictine says 100% of its students receive some form of financial aid.

Benedictine’s sports teams, called the Ravens, compete in National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Its athletics department says it is committed to ”setting the highest standards for academic success, athletic competition, ethical behavior, fiscal responsibility, and spiritual development.”

HOW DID GRADUATES REACT TO BUTKER’S SPEECH?

Video of the commencement shows virtually all the graduates and spectators rising to a standing ovation, but student interviews showed a more mixed reaction.

ValerieAnne Volpe, 20, who graduated with an art degree, lauded Butker for saying things that “people are scared to say.”

“I was thinking about my dad, who was also here, and how he’s probably clapping and so happy to see what he would say is a real man (reflecting) family values, good religious upbringing and representation of Christ to people,” she said. “You can just hear that he loves his wife. You can hear that he loves his family.”

Kassidy Neuner, 22, said the speech felt “a little degrading” and gave the impression that only women can be a homemaker.

“I think that men have that option as well,” said Neuner, who will be spending a gap year teaching before going to law school. “And to point this out specifically that that’s what we’re looking forward to in life seems like our four years of hard work wasn’t really important.”

Elle Wilbers, 22, who is heading to medical school in the fall, said the Catholic faith focuses on mothers, so that portion of the speech wasn’t surprising. She was more shocked by his criticism of priests and bishops “misleading their flocks” and a quip comparing LGBTQ+ Pride month to one of the seven deadly sins.

“We should have compassion for the people who have been told all their life that the person they love is like, it’s not okay to love that person,” Wilbers said. “It was sort of just a shock. I was like, ‘Is he really saying this right now?’”

WHAT DID BENEDICTINE’S NUNS SAY?

The Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica, one of the founding sponsors of Benedictine College, issued a statement Thursday criticizing Buter’s speech, contending it did not properly represent the college’s values.

“Instead of promoting unity in our church, our nation, and the world, his comments seem to have fostered division,” the statement said.

“One of our concerns was the assertion that being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman,” it added. “We sisters have dedicated our lives to God and God’s people, including the many women whom we have taught. ... These women have made a tremendous difference in the world in their roles as wives and mothers and through their God-given gifts in leadership, scholarship, and their careers.”

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Morocco: Criminalization of abortion has devastating impact on the rights of women and girls

The Moroccan state is failing to meet its obligations to ensure accessible, affordable and good quality sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, forcing women and girls into dangerous situations and violating their human rights, said Amnesty International today.

A new report titled My life is ruined: The need to decriminalize abortion in Morocco , documents how the criminalization of abortion in Morocco, even in cases when pregnancy results from rape, has devastating consequences for women and girls. Facing threats of imprisonment, many are compelled to clandestinely seek dangerous methods to terminate pregnancies. Those unsuccessful are coerced into carrying pregnancies to term, facing additional risks of prosecution under laws criminalizing sexual relations outside of marriage which exacerbate social exclusion and poverty, all while enduring the painful aftermath of failed abortion attempts.

This report features interviews with 33 women who sought abortion, as well as additional interviews with Moroccan NGOs working on women’s rights, legal and medical professionals. Despite sending letters to the Moroccan authorities in March and November 2023, and again in January 2024, presenting the report’s findings and seeking their response for inclusion in the report, no replies had been received at the time of publication. The report is being launched alongside a campaign to demand the decriminalization of abortion in Morocco.

“No state should dictate pregnancy decisions and deny women and girls essential sexual and reproductive health services including abortion that they are entitled to under international law. Morocco’s discriminatory laws, policies and practices deny women their right to autonomous decision-making and perpetuate a social climate that forces women and girls to continue with pregnancy regardless of consequences and fosters violence, poverty and systemic gender discrimination,” said Amjad Yamin, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

No state should dictate pregnancy decisions and deny women and girls essential sexual and reproductive health services including abortion that they are entitled to under international law. Amjad Yamin, Amnesty International

“Moroccan organizations have for years called upon the Moroccan authorities to decriminalize abortion and ensure that nobody is mistreated, humiliated, degraded or at risk of criminal sanction or social exclusion for seeking or obtaining an abortion. This report and campaign build on those efforts and reiterate that under international law, everyone who needs abortion should be able to access it with respect to their privacy, confidentiality and with informed consent. Affordable and accessible comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services for all, especially those with low incomes or living in poverty, must be provided through the public health system.”

“We can’t help women. Our hands are tied.”

The Moroccan Penal Code prohibits abortion unless it’s conducted by a licensed doctor or surgeon and deemed necessary to safeguard the woman’s health or life. Those undergoing or attempting abortion can face imprisonment ranging from six months to two years, along with fines, as well as additional prison sentences under provisions criminalizing sexual relations outside of marriage.

Laws prohibiting the dissemination of abortion-related information further restrict access to crucial healthcare resources, denying women the ability to make informed decisions about their pregnancies. “Inciting abortion” by any means, including through public speech or distributing related materials, carries penalties of up to two years in prison and/or fines.

What can we do as doctors? Nothing. We can’t help women. Our hands are tied. We’re frustrated because we can’t give women the help they want. A doctor in Morocco interviewed by Amnesty International

Medical professionals performing abortions outside the law risk losing their licenses. Providers, if subpoenaed, must also testify and disclose information about abortions they are aware of, thus compromising patient confidentiality.

These restrictions, compounded by the absence of medical guidelines or protocols on the provision of lawful abortions, leave many women without a legal and safe path to abortion.

One doctor told Amnesty International: “What can we do as doctors? Nothing. We can’t help women. Our hands are tied. We’re frustrated because we can’t give women the help they want.”

Herbs, chemicals and physical violence: Unsafe and ineffective

Women are most often left with no choice but to pursue unregulated, unsafe and often expensive abortions in secret. Women described resorting to a range of dangerous abortion methods including misusing pharmaceuticals, ingesting hazardous chemical mixtures and even physical violence, either self-inflicted or inflicted by others. Some women even attempted to end their own lives. Four women interviewed by Amnesty International required emergency hospital treatment for serious health complications resulting from unsafe self-induced attempts.

Farah, whose real name has been withheld to protect her identity, was raped by a male colleague when she was unconscious as a result of a diabetic attack. Two months later she found out she was pregnant and sought assistance from a gynaecologist who refused to perform an abortion. Her boss suspended her to avoid what he perceived as reputational harm to his business if she was to be prosecuted for sexual relations outside of marriage.

Farah tried terminating her pregnancy by herself but ultimately was forced to carry through the pregnancy to term despite suffering injuries and an infection. She told Amnesty International:

“I took all kinds of herbs and anything else that you can drink to have an abortion. I bought herbs from an herbalist, drank them, and got unbearable pains and threw up. I felt that my intestines were being torn apart but I did not have an abortion. One time, I went to my room, took off my clothes and inserted a long stick into my vagina and turned it in all directions, but all I got was a big wound and unbearable pain…. For more than five months I tried everything, to no avail. I even considered suicide.”

Morocco’s insufficient response to violence against women fosters a culture of impunity, enabling perpetrators of rape, intimate partner violence and sexual harassment to operate freely. Ten women told Amnesty International they became pregnant due to rape, perpetrated by strangers, neighbours, boyfriends, or husbands. Rape victims’ access to a remedy is undermined by harsh Penal Code penalties for sexual relations between unmarried people.

Women in Morocco must be enabled to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights through access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services including modern contraceptives and safe abortion. Saida Kouzzi, Founding Partner at Mobilising for Rights Associates

Criminalization and stigmatisation of abortion in Morocco also impact women who have unwanted or unintended pregnancies due to contraception failure, lack of access to contraception, or economic deprivation.

“Women in Morocco must be enabled to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights through access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services including modern contraceptives and safe abortion,” said Saida Kouzzi, Founding Partner at Mobilising for Rights Associates Amnesty International’s campaign partners.

Cruelty and discrimination against unmarried women

Morocco’s Penal Code penalizes sexual relations between unmarried individuals with one month to one year in prison, while adultery carries a sentence of one to two years. This not only leads to social exclusion but also exacerbates economic exclusion for women compelled to carry pregnancies to term. Women who have been imprisoned for such offences and have a criminal record also face additional barriers and stigma seeking employment and often face social isolation.

Ouiam, whose real name has been withheld to protect her identity, is a widow with a child, who was imprisoned for having sexual relations outside of marriage. She also unsuccessfully attempted to induce an abortion herself. She said: “As an unwed mother, I live in terror in my village, no one speaks to me… The people of the village treat me worse than ever.”

Several women interviewed described being verbally, physically, or sexually abused during their abortion experience.

The children of unmarried women forced to carry their pregnancy to term are denied legal identity due to laws that only recognize paternal filiation within legal marriages. The Family Code denies these children the right to bear the name of their biological father or receive financial support or inheritance, fostering poverty and discrimination against them. Furthermore, the Civil Status Code fails to guarantee unmarried women the right to obtain a family booklet, essential for registering birth and obtaining official documents to access basic services such as healthcare, education, legal aid and social benefits.

“The courageous women sharing their heartbreaking stories in this report inspire and demand action. It’s high time for the Moroccan authorities to prioritize women’s sexual and reproductive rights and shatter state silence and inaction surrounding abortion. They must urgently adopt laws that protect reproductive rights and autonomy, decriminalize abortion and ensure equal access to comprehensive healthcare including safe abortion for all women and girls,” said Stephanie Willman Bordat, Founding Partner of Mobilising for Rights Associates (MRA), Amnesty International’s campaign partner.

Harrison Butker’s commencement speech: Wives should stay at home. His mom’s a medical physicist

Kansas City Chiefs placekicker Harrison Butker

Show more sharing options
Copy Link URL Copied!

Harrison Butker is a three-time Super Bowl champion and one of the most accurate field-goal kickers in NFL history.

As such, the Kansas City Chiefs kicker was given a platform to express his views as the commencement speaker at Benedictine College .

The devout Christian used the opportunity to give some radical thoughts and controversial opinions during a 20-minute speech delivered at the ceremony honoring the 485 students graduating from the Catholic private liberal arts school in Atchison, Kan., on Saturday.

Butker took shots at gender roles, abortion, President Biden and Pride month during his Benedictine address. Now the NFL appears to be distancing itself from the 28-year-old.

“Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity,” Jonathan Beane, NFL senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, said in a statement emailed to The Times. “His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.”

Jerry Seinfeld in a blue robe and graduation cap standing behind a wooden podium that says "Duke"

Entertainment & Arts

What’s the deal with Jerry Seinfeld? His Duke University address sparks student walkout

Duke University enlisted Jerry Seinfeld to deliver its 2024 commencement speech, but a group of pro-Palestinian student protesters refused to stay for his punchline.

May 13, 2024

At Benedictine, Butker told the male graduates to “be unapologetic in your masculinity” and congratulated the female graduates on their “amazing accomplishment.” He went on to tell the women that he “would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

Butker then told those women that “my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on this stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation.”

Butker — whose mother, Elizabeth Keller Butker, is a medical physicist at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, where she’s worked since 1988 — then started getting choked up.

“I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me,” Butker said, “but it cannot be overstated that all my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

That statement was met with 18 seconds of enthusiastic cheers and applause. Butker continued praising his wife and her role in their family.

“She’s the primary educator to our children. She’s the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and a father. She is the person that knows me best at my core and it is through our marriage that, Lord willing, we both will attain salvation.”

LOS ANGELES-CA-MAY 10, 2024: USC valedictorian Asna Tabassum receives her diploma on stage beside Dean of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering Yannis C. Yortsos at the Galen Center in Los Angeles on May 10, 2024. (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Silenced USC valedictorian walked the stage and the crowd reaction was anything but silent

Diplomas will be handed out Friday during individual school events for graduating seniors at USC.

May 10, 2024

During his opening remarks, Butker stated that “things like abortion , in vitro fertilization , surrogacy , euthanasia, as well as a growing support for the degenerate cultural values and media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.”

He also said that Biden “has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I’m sure to many people it appears you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.”

At one point, Butker mentioned the word “pride” — then clarified that he wasn’t talking about “the deadly sins sort of Pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true God-centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify Him.”

The comment, a jab at the LGBTQ+ community that celebrates Pride month every June, received a few chuckles from the audience.

When Butker finished his address, the crowd rose for an ovation. Susannah Leisegang , a former Benedictine track and field athlete who graduated Saturday with a degree in graphic design, said she was among the handful of people who did not stand.

“Some of us did boo — me and my roommate definitely did,” Leisegang said in a video she posted on TikTok . “There was a standing ovation from everyone in the room, except from me, my roommate and about 10 to 15 other women. You also have to keep in mind this was at a Catholic and conservative college, so a lot of the men were like, ‘F— yeah!’ They were excited. But it was horrible. Most of the women were looking back and forth at each other like, ‘What the f— is going on?’”

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 24: Abortion rights supporters rally outside the Supreme Court on April 24, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to decide if Idaho emergency rooms can provide abortions to pregnant women during an emergency using a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to supersede a state law that criminalizes most abortions in Idaho. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Supreme Court to pregnant women: Good luck with that

Forget the ‘split court’ garbage. This Supreme Court is not going to protect even emergency abortions. Here’s what you need to know.

April 25, 2024

Leisegang pointed out that she is 21 and has a job lined up in her field.

“Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now,” she said. “So, yeah, it was definitely horrible and it definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I’m nothing but a homemaker.”

Other members of the graduating class who participated in the ceremony have shared a variety of opinions on Butker’s speech. Elle Wilbers, 22, a future medical school student, told the Associated Press she thought Butker’s reference to the LGBTQ+ community was “horrible.”

“We should have compassion for the people who have been told all their life that the person they love is like, it’s not OK to love that person,” she said.

Kassidy Neuner, 22, who plans to teach for a year before going to law school, told the AP that being a stay-at-home parent is “a wonderful decision” but “it’s also not for everybody.”

“I think that he should have addressed more that it’s not always an option,” she said. “And, if it is your option in life, that’s amazing for you. But there’s also the option to be a mother and a career woman.”

Two women pose back to back while carrying helmets in front of a red Ford truck.

Company Town

Hollywood’s stunt-driving industry is dominated by men. These women are fighting for change

Olivia Summers and Dee Bryant are building a team of all-women stunt drivers to make the stunt-driving industry more inclusive.

April 10, 2024

ValerieAnne Volpe, 20, who graduated with an art degree, told the AP she thought Butker said things that “people are scared to say.”

“You can just hear that he loves his wife,” Volpe said. “You can hear that he loves his family,” she said.

Butker has not commented publicly since the address. His previous social media posts are being used by people leaving comments both blasting and supporting his remarks. Heavy.com reports that all images of Isabelle Butker have been removed from her husband’s X and Instagram feeds in recent days.

Benedictine has not publicly addressed Butker’s controversial statements and did not immediately respond to multiple messages from The Times. The college’s social media feeds have been flooded with angry comments regarding Butker’s speech, and the comment section for the YouTube video of it has been disabled.

An article on Benedictine’s website about the commencement ceremony had initially referred to Butker’s speech as “inspiring.” The uncredited piece includes a reworked version of Butker’s “homemaker” quote that does not include that word, with no indication that the quote had been altered.

Football on grass stadium on college or high school campus. Bleachers background. No people. Daytime.

California high school football team refuses to play against girls, even after settling Title IX lawsuit

Despite settling a Title IX lawsuit, Santa Maria Valley Christian Academy again didn’t allow its high school football team to play against an opponent with female players.

Oct. 5, 2023

The Chiefs did not respond to a request for comment from The Times. Tavia Hunt, wife of Chiefs owner Clark Hunt , appeared to express her support for Butker in a lengthy Instagram post Thursday.

“Countless highly educated women devote their lives to nurturing and guiding their children,” she wrote. “Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make them hateful; it simply means they have a different opinion. Let’s celebrate families, motherhood and fatherhood.”

Gracie Hunt, 25, one of Clark and Tavia Hunt’s three children was asked about Butker’s speech Friday on “ Fox & Friends .”

“I can only speak from my own experience, which is I had the most incredible mom who had the ability to stay home and be with us as kids growing up,” Gracie Hunt said. “And I understand that there are many women out there who can’t make that decision but for me in my life, I know it was really formative in shaping me and my siblings to be who we are.”

Asked if she understood what Butker was talking about, Hunt said, “For sure, and I really respect Harrison and his Christian faith and what he’s accomplished on and off the field.”

A change.org petition calling for the team to release the kicker because of his comments has received more than 185,000 signatures. Eight petitions supporting Butker appear on the site as well. One has more than 11,000 signatures while the rest have fewer than 800 each.

The Chargers poked fun at Butker on Wednesday in their schedule-release video, which is modeled after “The Sims” video game. In the video, Butker’s likeness is shown baking a pie, scrubbing a kitchen counter and arranging flowers.

should we REALLY make our schedule release video in the sims? yes yes yesyes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yesye yes yes yes yes yesyes pic.twitter.com/MXzfAPyhe8 — Los Angeles Chargers (@chargers) May 16, 2024

The official X account for Kansas City also appeared to attempt putting a humorous spin on the matter, posting a “reminder” that Butker lives in a different city Wednesday night before deleting it and posting an apology .

Earlier in the week on X, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas appeared to defend Butker’s right to express his views .

Grown folks have opinions, even if they play sports. I disagree with many, but I recognize our right to different views. Nobody should have to stick to anything. Varied and shall I say—diverse—viewpoints help the world go round. — Mayor Q (@QuintonLucasKC) May 14, 2024

I think he holds a minority viewpoint, even in this state and the bordering one. I also believe more athletes, if freer to speak, would stand up for the voices of many marginalized communities. I hate “stick to sports” when used to muzzle Black athletes. I’m with consistency. — Mayor Q (@QuintonLucasKC) May 14, 2024

Last year, Butker gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Georgia Tech, advising the graduates to “ get married and start a family .”

VATICAN, ITALY-May 2019-Pope Francis meets with members of The Papal Foundation on Friday, and thanks them for their support and for spreading the Gospel message of hope and mercy. The Papal Foundation is comprised of American Catholics who dedicate financial resources to supporting the Pope and various projects throughout the world, including Catholic leader Tim Busch, forth from the left, waving to the Pope. (Handout)

The fight to move the Catholic Church in America to the right — and the little-known O.C. lawyer behind it

As Pope Francis nudges the Roman Catholic Church to the left globally, layman Tim Busch of Irvine is pushing American Catholicism to the right.

Dec. 18, 2023

Granderson: A football player said something stupid about women. Let it go

May 17, 2024

President Joe Biden arrives to speak at Prince William Forest Park on Earth Day, Monday, April 22, 2024, in Triangle, Va. Biden is announcing $7 billion in federal grants to provide residential solar projects serving low- and middle-income communities and expanding his American Climate Corps green jobs training program. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Biden’s Morehouse College graduation invitation draws backlash

April 24, 2024

Illustration of a couple, bot with white hair. Woman in a USC sweater, man in UCLA sit on a couch under Trojan and Bruin art.

L.A. Affairs: I went to USC. He went to UCLA. Could I fight on in the name of love?

April 12, 2024

Get our high school sports newsletter

Prep Rally is devoted to the SoCal high school sports experience, bringing you scores, stories and a behind-the-scenes look at what makes prep sports so popular.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Chuck Schilken is a sports reporter on the Fast Break team. He spent more than 18 years with the Los Angeles Times’ Sports Department in a variety of roles. Before joining The Times, he worked for more than a decade as a sports reporter and editor at newspapers in Virginia and Maryland.

More From the Los Angeles Times

President Joe Biden, left, stands with valedictorian DeAngelo Jeremiah Fletcher at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday, May 19, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

World & Nation

Biden tells Morehouse graduates he hears their voices of protest over the war in Gaza

May 19, 2024

Emigrant Gap, CA - April 17: The 40 Acre League's Jade Stevens sits for a portrait on Putt Lake where the league recently purchased 650 acres of with trails leading into to Tahoe National Forest that will be adapted for recreation and minority-owned small outdoor ventures on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 in Emigrant Gap, CA. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Climate & Environment

California’s first Black land trust fights climate change, makes the outdoors more inclusive

San Diego, California-Amy Baack teaches a free yoga class at Sunset Cliffs National Park in San Diego, California (Courtesy of Amy Baack)

Namaste away: Rangers bar yoga classes at cliffside San Diego park

May 18, 2024

An active drilling oil field on Rockwood St. is located near Alliance Ted K. Tajima High School in Los Angeles.

California’s effort to plug abandoned, chemical-spewing oil wells gets $35-million boost

IMAGES

⇉Abortion Persuasive Speech Essay Example
Opinion
Abortion case ruling boosts free speech
≫ Legalization of Abortion Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Abortion, contraception return to Supreme Court in free speech case
Contraception and Abortion

COMMENTS

Persuasive Speeches on Abortion
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 ...
Persuasive Essay About Abortion: Examples, Topics, and Facts
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.
PDF SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABORTION?
Step 1 - Prepare your "why". Story development and how to create your story for lasting impact. Step 2 - Know the Facts. Abortion facts and talking points to use in your conversations. Step 3 - Think About Who You Want to Speak With, When And How To Address Them. Crafting your conversations for success.
Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights
Since the Supreme Court's historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman's right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America.Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception - making abortion tantamount to homicide.
Aspen Baker: A better way to talk about abortion
Abortion is extremely common. In America, for example, one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime, yet the strong emotions sparked by the topic -- and the highly politicized rhetoric around it -- leave little room for thoughtful, open debate. In this personal, thoughtful talk, Aspen Baker makes the case for being neither "pro-life" nor "pro-choice" but rather "pro-voice ...
The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate : NPR
By Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel. Hardcover, 352 pages. Kaplan Publishing. List Price: $26. Read an Excerpt. Before the Supreme Court struck down many state laws restricting abortion in the ...
It can be really uncomfortable to talk about abortion. Here's ...
Brit Bennett's debut novel, "The Mothers," centers on a character's decision to have an abortion. It caused a stir when it was published last fall, and is still sparking conversations across the ...
Why Biden gave a speech about abortion rights : NPR
Twice in his speech, once near the beginning and again at the end, he invoked what he called, quote, "the anger, the worry, the disbelief" that Democrats felt when the Supreme Court ended the ...
Opinion
A recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concludes that "The clinical evidence clearly shows that legal abortions in the United States — whether by ...
Remarks by President Biden on Protecting Access to Reproductive Health
Roosevelt Room 12:04 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everyone. Before I speak to the Supreme Court extreme decision overturning Roe, I want to comment on one piece of good news — economic ...
How to Talk About Abortion
Abortion is health care — so call it that. The person you're talking to might have very narrow and stereotypical ideas about why people get abortions, but there are many different reasons someone might need to have an abortion. They may not be able to care for a child. They may need to focus on the kids they already have.
Abortion is Our Right, and We Won't Be Silenced
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. ... 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 ...
Abortion-Related Speech as a Protected Freedom of Speech
The debate about abortion-related commercial speech has long been contentious in the United States. Since 1975, abortion-related publications have been protected under the First Amendment as commercial speech that serves a public interest. [1] However, in a post-Dobbs era, reproductive healthcare providers and advocacy groups are renewing challenges to abortion literature restrictions enacted ...
How To Talk About Abortion
Step 3 - Plan your audience. We can change hearts and minds by speaking with people we know and trust. Here are a few different groups to consider speaking with about abortion: Family. Friends. Coworkers. Members of a club/volunteer team/church. Social media followers/mutuals. Fitness groups.
A High School Teen's Powerful Graduation Speech About Abortion Rights
June 2, 2021. YouTube. 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 ...
Why Freedom of Speech Is the Next 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 ...
Remarks Delivering a Policy Speech on Abortion in Arlington, Virginia
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.
PDF How to talk about abortion
surgical abortion, or when a person has access to high quality medication, information and support to undergo a medical abortion.i Safe abortion is safer than giving birth.ii (See Appendix 1: Common myths about abortion for more details on health myths.iii) Legal restrictions on abortion Restrictions on abortion exist around the world.
PolitiFact
Quarterly Journal of Speech, Rhetorical strategies for retrieving abortion rights, September 2022 Merriam-Webster, Ban definition and meaning, Accessed May 1, 2024 Justia.com, Roe v.
BBC
Introduction. The abortion debate deals with the rights and wrongs of deliberately ending a pregnancy before normal childbirth, killing the foetus in the process. Abortion is a very painful topic ...
The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term
May 16, 2024. Ban: Merriam-Webster defines it as "a legal or formal prohibition.". But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that ...
Write a Letter to the Editor in Support of Abortion Access
How to write a LTE: 1) Reference a specific article that ran in that newspaper. Here's an example. Notice that the writer includes the title of the article she is referencing and the date it was published. 2) Establish your connection. Share why abortion access is important to you. Examples of first lines:
Opinion
Federal District Courts in Indiana and Alabama both ruled this month that while states in the wake of Roe v. Wade's demise can ban abortion, they cannot make it illegal to give abortion-related ...
Abortion Research
Background Reading: It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic. This step is important so that you will: Begin building your core knowledge about your topic. Be able to put your topic in context.
Why Harrison Butker's speech was embraced at Benedictine College's
The Benedictine College sign is seen Wednesday, May 15, 2024, in Atchison, Kan., days after Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker gave a commencement speech that has been gaining attention. Butker's speech has raised some eyebrows with his proclamations of conservative politics and Catholicism, but he received a standing ovation from ...
Morocco: Criminalization of abortion has devastating impact on the
Morocco: Criminalization of abortion has devastating impact on the rights of women and girls The Moroccan state is failing to meet its obligations to ensure accessible, affordable and good quality sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, forcing women and girls into dangerous situations and violating their human rights, said Amnesty International today.
Here's Harrison Butker's Controversial Commencement Speech ...
Here's The Full Speech. Ladies and gentlemen of the class of 2024, I would like to start off by congratulating all of you for successfully making it to this achievement today.
Harrison Butker's commencement speech: Wives should stay at home
Sports. Harrison Butker's commencement speech: Wives should stay at home. His mom's a medical physicist. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker expressed some controversial views about ...