Abortion and Women's Rights in the United States

Women’s Rights

“Ohio pols should trust women to make reproductive decisions” was written by Kellie Copeland. She is the executive director of the NARAL pro-choice.
NARAL stands for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, it is a non-governmental organization in the United States that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion.
Kellie Dee Copeland Swisher, is the name she picked up last, when she married Dr. Stephen Lowell Swisher on the 18th of July, 2008. She was married to two other men before, whom she had her 4 children from. Rachel and Lindsey were from her first husband Doyle Blaine Ward. Jenny and Max are from her second husband, Alan Kutz.
This Article talks about the abortion rules that the state of Ohio follows. And how some women simply do not like the fact that other people make decision on their behalf, concerning their private lives, and are speaking up for their selves. Kellie Copeland took the advantage of her running a high position in the organization that she is in, to speak on behalf of all the women who agree with her, that abortion is a personal issue, and nobody or no one can control it.
So she wrote an article in The Plain Dealer on the 29th of Jan of this year, talking about abortion.
Obviously here Kellie is an advocate of abortion, and she is against the new law forbidding it.
The Same politicians that made debates on how the government had no right to interfere in the health decisions of Americans are now interfering themselves. Kellie talking on behalf of the American woman, in how abortion is not something the government should interfere in, makes this argument effective. And not talking about the other side of the story, why other people think the law is good makes the article ineffective and weak at the same time.
Moreover, the article continues to prove the politicians wrong in the decision they are making. Kellie talks about the bad things that will happen if abortions get out-lawed. First of all, she clearly states that if abortion gets out-lawed, it will NOT be the end of abortion; in fact it will only make things worse. Second of all, she lists ways on how abortion will still be done. Wealthy women will go out of state to seek legal and safe abortion care. And how other women with no financial means, will tend to use unsafe methods which may lead in them being injured, imprisoned or even dead.
Third of all, she states how it is a public violation of women’s private rights to decide what they want and don’t want. Showing the cons of the decision Kellie is defending, makes the argument even more effective. It attracts the reader to her side of the argument.

However, the author does not really talk much about the other side of the story, the side of the people supporting the law, which makes the argument a little weak, because the reader doesn’t know the other part of the story. But this might be because this is coming from a woman’s point of view, and most likely she will not like anything that might offend her only because she is a woman.
Her tone very sarcastic and angry throughout the article; she does that by stating questions without answers, to make the reader think about the message she is trying to make people understand.

Finally to conclude, the things that make the article effective to some point are: first of all, which is the most important, is that it is coming from a woman, and so the subject under attack is responding with what they think is right or wrong for their own lives. Second, we can see how she is hostile about taking women’s rights away, and she calls the anti-group “crazy”. Third, she mentions how the government makes private family issues, public, which is a violation of their privacy. Fourth, forbidding abortion does not make things any better in the state, but instead it makes things worse, because women who are determined on having an abortion will do it, in some way or the other. And some ways may end up in having the woman seeking abortion injured or in jail.
The only thing that would make the article ineffective is that she did not mention the other point of view, the people who support the law. And why do they support it, they may have more convincing reasons that might make the reader change their mind and become with the law instead of against it.
All this relates to the statement made in the introduction, the writer mentioning some things that make article effective, and in the same time, not mentioning other things, that makes it ineffective.

Works Cited

1. Lady, Destinys. "Senior Pastor on Third Husband!!!." Lipstickalley blog. N.p., 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <www.lipstickalley.com/f158/senior-pastor-third-husband-154008/>.

2. Copeland, Kellie . "Ohio Pols Should Trust Women to Make Reproductive Decisions." The Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 29 Jan. 2012: 1. Print.

Cited: 1. Lady, Destinys. "Senior Pastor on Third Husband!!!." Lipstickalley blog. N.p., 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. &lt;www.lipstickalley.com/f158/senior-pastor-third-husband-154008/&gt;. 2. Copeland, Kellie . "Ohio Pols Should Trust Women to Make Reproductive Decisions." The Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 29 Jan. 2012: 1. Print.