(Seclarig, 2015)) or just go out of business. With half of the clinics in Texas closing their doors and more than 22,000 women left without any meaningful access to abortions, hundreds of personnel might be put out of work. (Khazan, 2014)
Public administrators at the Texas Department of State Health Services who are responsible for the implementation the policy are also the stakeholders. Acting on behalf of the public agency it is the individuals, who ultimately make decisions within the organization. Such decisions might contradict not only their personal beliefs, but the interests of the public they serve as well. Confronted with a conflict of principles, how is the administrator supposed to find balance between his responsibility to implement …show more content…
The morality of the Texas law that demands an unnecessary increase of safety standards at abortion facilities can be just as easily defied from a deontological position.
What principle applies in this case? Does the government have a right to stay in the way of a woman seeking a safe and life-changing for some procedure? Does state interest in promoting childbirth outweigh women’s right to make decisions concerning her health? Are women treated as rational individuals, or are they considered “less-wise” members of society needing guidance deciding whether to have a baby or not? (Geuras & Garofalo, 2011, p. 81) Does having an abortion clinic within a reasonable distance your town or city mean that women would line up to get abortions? Women have individual reasons to seek abortions. A conservative community promotes the stigma of abortions to be sought by promiscuous irresponsible women, which should pay for the consequences of their carelessness. Can such treatment of a woman be justified under any conditions? Are women treated as ends themselves? If they are, than why should the government’s concern about the baby’s welfare end right after the baby was born and an unwanted pregnancy has been used to support a political campaign? None of the political or religious principles should override women’s right to decide what to do with her …show more content…
Both supporters and critics of abortion-restricting regulation claim protecting health and safety of a woman, although the means of achieving this goal are dialectically opposite. What does the conscience of “pro-lifers” tells them about their backing of this intrusive law is probably quite different, from how abortion rights advocates view this issue. They see a surge in passing antiabortion rights measures as an attempt to control women, not to promote safety, whereas their opponents view a fetus, an inseparable part of a pregnant woman’s body, as a “human being” and an “innocent life lost” if an abortion performed. What makes the supporters of the legislation feel good about their decision is a distorted perception of what is right and what is wrong and biased vision of the issue, which oftentimes goes against the doctrine of separation of the church and state. Devastating long time repercussions of the ruling would inevitably lay on the shoulders of scores of Texas women. Ending a pregnancy could mean traveling hundreds of miles and overcoming needless obstacles, such as additional costs, childcare, time off and immigration checkpoints. (Unknown,
Public administrators at the Texas Department of State Health Services who are responsible for the implementation the policy are also the stakeholders. Acting on behalf of the public agency it is the individuals, who ultimately make decisions within the organization. Such decisions might contradict not only their personal beliefs, but the interests of the public they serve as well. Confronted with a conflict of principles, how is the administrator supposed to find balance between his responsibility to implement …show more content…
The morality of the Texas law that demands an unnecessary increase of safety standards at abortion facilities can be just as easily defied from a deontological position.
What principle applies in this case? Does the government have a right to stay in the way of a woman seeking a safe and life-changing for some procedure? Does state interest in promoting childbirth outweigh women’s right to make decisions concerning her health? Are women treated as rational individuals, or are they considered “less-wise” members of society needing guidance deciding whether to have a baby or not? (Geuras & Garofalo, 2011, p. 81) Does having an abortion clinic within a reasonable distance your town or city mean that women would line up to get abortions? Women have individual reasons to seek abortions. A conservative community promotes the stigma of abortions to be sought by promiscuous irresponsible women, which should pay for the consequences of their carelessness. Can such treatment of a woman be justified under any conditions? Are women treated as ends themselves? If they are, than why should the government’s concern about the baby’s welfare end right after the baby was born and an unwanted pregnancy has been used to support a political campaign? None of the political or religious principles should override women’s right to decide what to do with her …show more content…
Both supporters and critics of abortion-restricting regulation claim protecting health and safety of a woman, although the means of achieving this goal are dialectically opposite. What does the conscience of “pro-lifers” tells them about their backing of this intrusive law is probably quite different, from how abortion rights advocates view this issue. They see a surge in passing antiabortion rights measures as an attempt to control women, not to promote safety, whereas their opponents view a fetus, an inseparable part of a pregnant woman’s body, as a “human being” and an “innocent life lost” if an abortion performed. What makes the supporters of the legislation feel good about their decision is a distorted perception of what is right and what is wrong and biased vision of the issue, which oftentimes goes against the doctrine of separation of the church and state. Devastating long time repercussions of the ruling would inevitably lay on the shoulders of scores of Texas women. Ending a pregnancy could mean traveling hundreds of miles and overcoming needless obstacles, such as additional costs, childcare, time off and immigration checkpoints. (Unknown,