How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #3

Delving beneath merely abortion itself, at this point in the book Page discusses how the pro-life movement’s attitude toward condom use further hinders their cause. She writes, “For pro-lifers, condom use, like contraception, is anathema. Abstinence is the acceptable form of safe sex. To advance this goal, they’re willing to trounce good science, or make up their own” (84). While she supports many of the claims she makes in this section with plausible research results and evidence, she nonetheless seems to make big assumptions about those who do not support abortion. She touts them as being “religious fundamentalists” who distort all evidence and essentially have no case. While I agree with Page’s basic point that condom use is an effective means to prevent pregnancy and should not be considered a form of abortion, in my opinion she greatly hurts her argument by painting her opposition as unilateral, uneducated religious fanatics.

In this chapter, “The Condom Hoax,” Page offers some very interesting information on some of the worldwide implications of the pro-life movement. For example, she discusses how the Vatican, who she says is “another believer in the condom cover-up,” attempted to halt efforts of condom distribution in African countries ravaged by AIDS, under the premise that it offended pro-life ideals (87). Clearly, an institution as influential as the Vatican spewing anti-contraception ideas will lead, or has already led, to the death of many. I found this argument particularly compelling because Page is not directly discussing the flaws of being against abortion, but rather the illogical ideals held by those who do not support realistic means of pregnancy prevention—the root of the entire abortion debate. It is in sections, sections such as these where she brings a new dimension to the abortion argument, when I believe Page makes up for her often-obnoxious treatment of those who are pro-life. 

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #2

At this point in the book, Page begins to outline what is wrong with the very root of the pro-life movement. However, she first brings up the point that past bans on abortion have not resulted in actually curbing abortion rates. Instead, the abortions were performed illegally. She writes, "To begin with, criminalizing abortion may be a sacred pro-life goal. But in practice, bans have failed to curb the rates of abortions. Many countries that have outlawed abortion have higher abortion rates than countries where abortion is legal"(57-58). I found this evidence to be very interesting. I know the argument of banning abortions leading to more unsafe, "coat hanger" abortions has been used time and again by pro-choice advocates in defense of keeping abortion legal. I think the evidence that Page presents adds another dimension to this argument by showing that not only could outlawing abortion logically lead to an increase in dangerous abortions, but also simply an increase in abortions overall. With this point, Page made me realize how counterproductive some pro-life ideals truly are.

Page continues on to unearth the root of the abortion debate: both sides' approach to sex and sex education. While I understand that some of Page's assertions may be spun to best support her argument and therefore are not a precise representation of the reality of the issue, her words are generally based in fact and are generally truthful. For example, Page gives the impression that all pro-lifers are devoutly religious and believe in abstinence-only programs. While I am sure this is true for a significant portion of pro-life advocates, I myself know of many people who are against abortion yet are not particularly religious or believe in only educating young people by teaching abstinence only. Page points out the major flaws in teaching children and teenagers that abstinence is the only way to prevent unplanned pregnancies. She does this when she says, "Abstinence-only programs offer the worst of both worlds: kids are not convinced about chastity, yet are completely uninformed about protection, which the programs refuse to teach" (67-68). Once again, Page reveals how counterproductive some pro-life ideals are. How are teenagers-- and Page offers a statistic that reveals half of all 15 to 19 year olds are sexually active-- expected to avoid unintended pregnancies, and therefore the dilemma of a potential abortion, if they are not sufficiently educated on various ways to prevent pregnancy? To me, it seems like it would benefit pro-lifers, if their real aim is to eradicate abortion, to embrace the concept of birth control.

A New Kind of Women's Rights

After reading both the pro-life and pro-choice websites, it seems that the pro-choice movement has better arguments than its pro-life counterpart. The arguments presented by the NARAL website are rooted in reality and practicality rather than personal, moral convictions and emotionally charged opinions. The NARAL website presents the information in a "problem- solution" format: They present the issues that are on the table regarding abortion, birth control, sex education, etc. and then continue to show how their cause combats these problems. Furthermore, none of their arguments infringe on the rights of others. They never make any claims such as "all teen pregnancies should be terminated" or "women must take birth control." All of their options are just that-- they are options. Not obligations that everyone must follow. They recognize that not all women feel that abortion is right and therefore advocate for the availability of birth control and abortion for those who find the option appealing. On the National Right to Life website they, unsuccessfully in my opinion, use emotions to try and sway people. When they describe abortion, they go into intense detail about exactly how the fetus is terminated, clearly trying to change people's opinions by inspiring sympathy for the fetus as well as fear surrounding the procedure of abortion. On their "Get the Facts" page, they describe abortion as a decision that will inspire, "a lifetime of potential physical and mental health problems." Although the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not one to be taken lightly, the website does seem to overdramatize the act of abortion. Overall, the pro-choice movement seems to be winning the battle. They present themselves in a less emotional and more pragmatic way than many pro-life advocates. Also, the pro-choice movement in no way hurts those who do not support it. If abortion does not appeal to a woman, she is under no obligation to choose it. The flexibility and accommodating nature of this side of the argument is where it truly surpasses the pro-life movement. 
As a 17 year old who considers herself to be a strong supporter of the pro-choice campaign, I still believe that it is necessary that a parent is notified if his or her daughter is a minor and considering receiving an abortion. I think, to a degree, an abortion must be treated like any other medical procedure, with a parent signature needed for the process to be completed. Even though I think it is a woman's right to choose, the rights of minors are restricted and I think it is only fair that the restrictions apply across the board, including abortion. 
However, the issue of consent is slightly different in the case of notifying the father. Since a child is just as much the mother's as it is the father's, I think that the father should definitely be notified before the abortion takes place because he has the right to know if his child's life is being terminated. Even so, the father of the child has no legal control over the mother (if the mother is a minor or not) and ultimately has no right to control what the mother does to her body. Therefore, I think the father should be notified, but consent in unnecessary. 
I was pleasantly surprised by the Illinois abortion laws. Even though I disagree with some of them such as the spousal consent law and the TRAP law, I thought most of the laws were very reasonable. I also agreed with a few of the laws that fell under the "anti-choice" category, such as the law that prevents taxpayers from paying for abortion. I think this law is very justified because it is unfair to make Illinois taxpayers pay for a procedure that, while very significant in a woman's life, is largely based on personal choice. Furthermore, I think it would detrimental to the pro-choice movement as a whole if it was forcing those who do no believe in abortion to fund abortion. 

The Death Penalty: How It Works

1. There are several stages that seem to protect the rights of the accused. During jury selection, the court thoroughly interviews the jurors to ensure that they possess no pre-existing biases or prejudices. Also, the option given to the accused to have either a judge or a jury decide on a sentence ensures that the accused will not be a victim a single individual's opinions or prejudices. The accused in also given the opportunity to appeal their case to the and request post convictions reviews, such as an en banc review; the participation of the entire circuit court is designed to carefully consider the defendant's case once again. After reading about the various stages involved in issuing capital punishment, it seems that the process is thorough enough to ensure that all who are sentenced with the death penalty are indeed guilty.

2. The most humane method of the death penalty is certainly lethal injection. It does not seem to be "cruel and unusual" because it is essentially a painless process for the prisoner; they die while already unconscious due to the anesthetics. However, the methods such as hanging, firing squad, gas chamber are decidedly both inhumane and "cruel and unusual". These methods employ strategies that impart unnecessary amounts of pain and torture onto the prisoner. Seeing as how the United States does not condone the use of torture in prisons, this seems very unusual and against American ideologies.

3. Geographically, it appears that while the death penalty has been adopted by the majority of the states, almost all of the states that do not use the death penalty are in the north (the only southern state to not use capital punishment is New Mexico). The two states that seem to rely most heavily on the death penalty, or at least employ it most heavily as a form of punishment, are Texas and Florida. Although is shrinking in relevance in the the US judicial system and how it may affect one's sentence, one cannot ignore the fact that a disproportionately large amount of blacks are executed in Texas, a state that has a history with enduring racist views, as compared to whites. While this is not sufficient evidence to claim that these death penalty sentences are racially charged and therefore unjust, this fact is nonetheless relevant and ought to be taken into consideration when looking at the geographical distribution of death penalty popularity and frequency.

4. In my previous response, I commented that the South seems to have much higher incidence of the death penalty. I assumed this was perhaps just due to an overall higher crime rate in these states, meaning that it would make sense for the death penalty to occur more often in states that inherently have a higher occurrence of capital offenses. However, while the crime rate in the South is the highest, it not not by a huge margin: as of 2009, there were six murders per 100,00 people, whereas the national average is five murders per 100,000 people; this hardly qualifies as a large enough discrepancy to account for the disproportionately large number of death sentences that are handed out in the South. Overall, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center is against capital punishment. Many of the statistics included on their page highlight how the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime as well as having a long history of executing the innocent.

Does Clifford Boggess Deserve to Die?

     Independent of my feelings that, from a practical viewpoint, the death penalty is incorrect, I believe that Clifford Boggess should have been executed because the aggravating factors of the case far outweigh the mitigating factors. Initially, I believed that Boggess' seemingly amiable and stable personality was evidence that he had changed while in prison. However, as several of his family members and acquantinces shared their experiences and thoughts on Boggess, it became clear that his capacity to deceive others had just improved. His ex-girlfriend Phoebe describes Boggess as having "no heart" as well as having an explosive temper, a remorseless attitude, and clearly describes psychopathic tendencies. His uncle, Carl Boggess, also said that there "was always something off about Clifford. He just didn't act like a normal person." Carl Boggess finished his testimony by stating that Clifford "was crazy".
    I suppose to do not believe that people can change. As the film continued, I found myself becoming more and more horrified at Boggess' capacity to manipulate others and make them believe that he has indeed changed. While it is clear that he has taken a deep interest in art and Christianity, these newfound passions and beliefs are overshadowed by his deep-seated unpredicitability and need to kill. As Clifford's uncle Carl Boggess said, "he is a great pretender".
   Listening to the testimony of the victims' families, it was blatantly obvious that Boggess' death did not supply them with any consolation of or sense of justice. Upon receiving a letter from Boggess in which he expressed his (supposed) remorse, Lisa Hazelwood said that while she was certain at that time more than ever that he deserved to die, she did not believe that it was appropriate that he die in the way that he did. She emphasized that his execution made it too easy for him and that he was able to escape his suffering through death. This sentiment was echoed by Mr. Collier, the brother of a victim. Furthermore, Hazelwood voiced her frustration that by executing Boggess, he was able to reach a point of resolution before his death whereas her grandfather "didn't get to when he died." I vehemently agree with Hazelwood's statement that the death penalty affords criminals with an unfair luxury of choosing a death date and allowing them to perhaps reach a point of personal absolution and that if the death penalty's aim is to provide an ultimate form of punishment, it has sorely failed.

"Bullied to Death"

    In the Time article "Bullied to Death?" it discusses the lethal effects cyberbullying can have on teenagers, with an emphasis on the abuse to which many gay teenagers are subjected. A case that caught my eye was the one involving 18 year old Tyler Clementi. As a student at Rutgers University, he was paired with a homophobic roommate who frequently made him feel unsafe. Although Clementi complained to his RA that he and his roommate were not getting along, he complaints did not help his cause. The roommate ultimately posted a video on the internet of Tyler kissing another boy, prompting Tyler to commit suicide by jumping off of a bridge. In light of all of the recent suicides that have been a result of bullying, I think it is tremendously important that schools and universities actively respond to any student's complaint of feeling threatened or unsafe. If schools make it a habit to end bullying and harassment before it prompts the victim to make an irrevocable decison, tragedies such as Tyler Clementi's would certainly decrease in frequency.
   A case that particularly caught my attention was United States v. Lori Drew. In this case, Lori Drew, a suburban mother, starting communicating with Megan Meier while posing as "Josh Evans" on MySpace. Her comments to Meier ultimately turned volatile and resulted in Meier hanging herself. After appealing her case, Drew was acquitted of all charges, which included conspiracy, fraudulent use of the internet, and providing false information to MySpace. I was extremely upset that Drew, who was a large in the not the sole cause of Megan's death, was able to evade punishment entirely. Therefore, I think that there ought to be anti-harassment laws put into effect that apply retroactively, thereby enabling abusive cyberbullies such as Lori Drew to be brought to justice.
    Even though I do not believe that bullying is a very big issue at DHS, there are still certain, perhaps less severe, forms of bullying that are present at our school. Unlike in the film we watched about Jamie Nabozny and several of the other cases we have examined that involve physical bullying at schools, I do not think that this form of bullying is very prevalent at DHS. Instead, any bullying that occurs using involves not what students are saying or doing, but rather what they are not saying or doing. Bullying at DHS frequently manifests itself in the form of isolation. Students who may not wear the latest clothes or have interests that deviate from the norm are often excluded and isolated from other students and activities. Potential solutions to this issue may be simply encouraging bystanders to intervene. Bullying can be a vicious cycle that can only be interrupted by the intervention of an adult or other student. If students are able to recognize when one of their peers may be isolated because of their differences and then choose to reach out to that student, it encourages other students to do the same while simultaneously preventing the negative ramifications of bullying from occurring.

Drug Testing: A Breach of the Fourth Amendment?

In cases such as Vernonia v. Acton and New Jersey v. T.L.O, the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was brought to the attention of several courts across the country. Included in this debate is the issue of drug testing and the potential breaches of personal privacy that it implies. I am very much in favor of drug testing for students.


It seems to be that the paramount concern of those who protest random and required drug testing for students is the fact that it can be conducted without any suspicion that actual drug use is occurring. The drug test, a form of a 'search', is where many see a violation of the Fourth Amendment: the lack of any probable cause seems to directly contradict that which is outlined in the Fourth Amendment. Despite the argument that rejects random drug testing because of the lack of probable cause, I still believe that random drug testing in schools would be nothing by beneficial. When we had a debate in class, the side that was against drug testing argued that drug testing only punishes those who have already used drugs, therefore not truly preventing drug use in the first place. However, by creating a program in which random drug testing is required by all athletes/students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities, students would be able to use this policy as a way to diffuse any pressure to try drugs; a random drug testing policy is an effective excuse for students attempting to avoid drug use. Additionally, the argument made by the opposition that a suspicion-less search or drug test is unconstitutional, must consider the context in which this search is being placed. Schools hold dual responsibilities in providing an education for the students as well as adequately disciplining those who interfere with or present a threat to the learning environment. If a school official was obligated to obtain a warrant before conducting a search or drug test, it would severly interfere with obligation of the school to, according to Justice White, maintain "swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools."

While many would say that by allowing random searches is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, I believe that if the searches are not overly invasive or practiced with such frequency that they disrupt the learning environment, then they ought to be allowed. After all, students who truly have nothing to hide will not be inconvienced, while the students who were engaging in potentially harmful activities will be appropriately disciplined, thereby improving the environment of the school as a whole.

After reading the ACLU article "U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional," my stance remains the same. It was the disproportionately invasive reaction of the school in response to the accusation that Redding possessed ibuprofen which made the school's actions so inappropriate and ultimately unconstitutional. Since the school did have suspicion that Redding may have had the pills in her posession, I would not necessarily refute their decision to search her backpack. However, the school officials were too extreme in their search and ultimately ended up violating her privacy to such a degree that their actions became violations of the Constitution.