NEED A CORRECTION PLEASE GUYS !!!
In the United States, the right to have an arbortion exists since the case « Roe versus Wade » in the Supreme Court, in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that the right of abortion for a woman is part of the right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. However, it is possible to have doubts about the persistence of this right and there are reasons to believe that this right could be prohibited in the future. Indeed, since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, many rights are threatened, especially when these rights concern women. This is explained by the very conservative position of the president on many subjects. The article “The Supreme Court's big arbortion hypocrisy”, published in “The Washington Post” in 2018 shows very well the endangerment of the right to abortion for women since the last few years.
While the right to abort is considered as a fundamental one and that all women can have access to it, the Supreme Court decision in 2018 seems very conservative as it protects centers for anti-abortion. The Supreme Court approved the actual practices of these centers which hold a more religious and political discourse, than a real medical discourse. The decision of the Supreme Court does not appear fair between the anti-abortion centers that can do what they want and the centers that practice abortion, which are regulated. There is a sort of discrimination by the SC against abortion centers, which may seem very surprising from the highest instance of the USA. So the real threat can therefore affect the right to abortion, but it goes further because there are other rights which are endangered by the Supreme Court. In fact, the freedom of expression of the legal centers practicing abortion are the only ones who must recite a special text imposed by law. And moreover, the access to the right to health for all is also threatened. Depending on where you live, you will be more or less likely to have access to objective doctors.
Acutally, this can be explained by the fact that the Christian religion is deeply rooted in politics in the United States. In principle there is a separation of Church and State as in France, but in reality religion is very important in political life in the United States, which may explain the freedom granted to anti-abortion centers by the Supreme Court. While the California law wanted to regulate antiarbortion centers, which make sense, the Supreme Court prefered to overturn this California law.
Search from various English teachers...
Corrections · 2
1
NEED A CORRECTION PLEASE GUYS !!!
In the United States, the right to have an arbortion abortion exists since the case « Roe versus Wade » in the Supreme Court, in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that the right of to abortion for a woman is part of the right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. However, it is possible to have doubts about the persistence of this right and there are reasons to believe that this right could be prohibited in the future. Indeed, since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, many rights are threatened, especially when these rights concern women. This is explained by the very conservative position of the president on many subjects. The article “The Supreme Court's big arbortion abortion hypocrisy”, published in “The Washington Post” in 2018 shows very well the endangerment of the right to abortion for women since in the last few years.
While the right to abort is considered as a fundamental one and that all women can have access to it, the Supreme Court Court's decision in 2018 seems very conservative as it protects centers for anti-abortion. The Supreme Court approved the actual practices of these centers which hold a more religious and political discourse, than a real medical discourse. The decision of the Supreme Court does not appear fair between the anti-abortion centers that can do what they want and the centers that practice abortion, which are is regulated. There is a sort of discrimination by the SC against abortion centers, which may seem very surprising from the highest instance of the USA. So the real threat can, therefore, affect the right to abortion, but it goes further because there are other rights which that are endangered by the Supreme Court. In fact, the freedom of expression of the legal centers practicing abortion are is the only ones one who must recite a special text imposed by law. And moreover, the access to the right to health for all is also threatened. Depending on where you live, you will be more or less likely to have access to objective doctors.
0
Bonjour, Alexia! This is pretty great work. As a writer, I've included some corrections, and suggestions. We'll go paragraph by paragraph.
In the United States, the right to have an arbortion exists since the case « Roe versus Wade » in the Supreme Court, in 1973.
> In the United States, the right to have an abortion has existed since the 1973 Supreme Court Case, Roe vs. Wade.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right of abortion for a woman is part of the right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. However, it is possible to have doubts about the persistence of this right and there are reasons to believe that this right could be prohibited in the future.
> The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman's right to an abortion is part of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. However, there are doubts about the persistence of this right, and there are reasons to believe it could be prohibited in the future.
Indeed, since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, many rights are threatened, especially when these rights concern women. This is explained by the very conservative position of the president on many subjects. The article “The Supreme Court's big arbortion hypocrisy”, published in “The Washington Post” in 2018 shows very well the endangerment of the right to abortion for women since the last few years.
> Indeed, since Donald Trump's election in 2016, many rights have been threatened, especially those concerning women. This is explained by the president's deeply conservative position on many subjects. A 2018 article published in The Washington Post, titled "The Supreme Court's big abortion hypocrisy" also shows how abortion rights have been endangered over the last few years.
While the right to abort is considered as a fundamental one and that all women can have access to it, the Supreme Court decision in 2018 seems very conservative as it protects centers for anti-abortion. The Supreme Court approved the actual practices of these centers which hold a more religious and political discourse, than a real medical discourse. The decision of the Supreme Court does not appear fair between the anti-abortion centers that can do what they want and the centers that practice abortion, which are regulated. There is a sort of discrimination by the SC against abortion centers, which may seem very surprising from the highest instance of the USA. So the real threat can therefore affect the right to abortion, but it goes further because there are other rights which are endangered by the Supreme Court. In fact, the freedom of expression of the legal centers practicing abortion are the only ones who must recite a special text imposed by law. And moreover, the access to the right to health for all is also threatened. Depending on where you live, you will be more or less likely to have access to objective doctors.
> While the right to abort is considered fundamental, the Supreme Court's 2018 decision seems very conservative, as it protects anti-abortion centers. The Court approved the practices of these centers, which hold a more political and religious discourse than a medical one. The Supreme Court's decision appears unfair, as these anti-abortion centers can do what they want, while centers that permit abortion are regulated. This sort of discrimination may seem surprising, coming from the highest quarters of the USA. The main threat is to the right to abortion, but other rights are also being threatened. In fact, legal centers practicing abortion must recite a special text imposed by law, which harms freedom of expression. Moreover, access to universal healthcare is also being threatened. Depending on where you live, you'll be more or less likely to have access to objective doctors. (Note the large edit, to clarify the paragraph.)
> This can be explained by the fact that Christianity is deeply rooted in US politics. In principle, there's a separation between Church and State, as in France, but in practice, religion plays a large part in American political life. This may explain the freedom granted to anti-abortion centers by the Supreme Court. For example, while California wanted to regulate anti-abortion centers under law, the Supreme Court preferred to overturn this move.
Anyway, hope my corrections helped you. You're doing so well on your journey to learn English. Keep it up! (I hope to be able write something this complex in French one day, haha.)
Want to progress faster?
Join this learning community and try out free exercises!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!
Start Learning Today
