Clarifying misconceptions and advocating for your reproductive rights

At CSB+SJU, the prochoice movement is often very misunderstood. Misconceptions surrounding what it means to support the pro-choice movement are rampant, and it is often labeled as an “anti-life” movement. The pro-choice movement is anything but anti-life. It is a movement that supports the rights of individuals and grants people the autonomy to take control over their own bodies and the trajectory of their lives. Through this article I hope to clear up the misconceptions surrounding the pro-choice movement and show how beneficial the movement truly is for broader American society.

For nearly 50 years, the antiabortion movement has made it a goal to go beyond ending Roe v. Wade, and now that Roe has been overturned, we are indeed seeing red states taking steps like restricting access to different forms of birth control, minimizing sex education and restricting good prenatal and postpartum healthcare. Generally, anti-abortion conservatives have proven they are intent on prying into and heavily regulating all aspects of women’s and family’s sexual and maternal health decisions. If those involved in the anti-abortion movement are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions (instead of controlling women’s and family’s lives), perhaps they might consider advocating and voting for policies and political leaders that will improve sexual and maternal health access instead of minimizing it. This is a concrete step that will help prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve sexual education and reduce the number of abortions. The anti-abortion movement frequently argues that “there are other options.” Usually, you see the other option being adoption or placing babies in the foster care system because a person cannot support a maintainable lifestyle with a child. Sure, this is an option, but when you look at the statistical aspects of what happens to kids who have been in our child welfare system, you’ll find data from websites like National Youth in Transition Database. The database states that almost 30% of former foster care youth experience homelessness by age 21. This number rises to 43% among American Indian young adults. Another 20% of former foster care youth report being incarcerated by age 21. On top of that, Illinois University released a study following 301 cases in the foster care system, and they found that 16% of the cases had reports of abuse and neglect. Furthermore, 68% of that abuse was sexual abuse.

So why force someone to carry a fetus to full term just to place a child into a system that does not ensure them a good life? Of course there are loving families, and adoption can be a beautiful thing, but until we can clean up the child welfare system, we cannot tell people to go through pregnancy to give up their child to a flawed system.

In The Record article from last week’s newspaper, the authors made it sound like abortions at 40 weeks are common. This information is inaccurate. The Pew Research states that 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, 6% occur during the second trimester, and only 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or more of gestation. Continued research revealed a clip from a Washington Post article that shared the work of a sociologist Katrina Kimport at the University of California, San Francisco, who conducted interviews of women who got late-term abortions. The women Kimport interviewed were lacking critical health information about their fetus earlier in their pregnancy. In addition, the women had challenges finding a provider, they could not get the necessary approvals from doctors in states that require them for an abortion or they had financial constraints.

The women Kimport worked with wanted an early abortion and tried to get one but were unable to do so because of the substantial obstacles, many of which were creations of the anti-abortion movement. Kimport makes it clear that no one decides to wait until 40 weeks to get an abortion. These late-stage abortions span beyond mothers not being given the right resources early in pregnancy. They are conducted as a last resort, often to save the mother in medical situations.

So, when the pro-life club says, “all life is sacred, and we do not pick and choose,” they are contradicting themselves. Outlawing abortion in all circumstances certainly counts as “picking” the potential baby’s life as more valuable than the mother’s life. And, given their opposition to increased access to birth control, maternal health care, prenatal and postnatal pediatric care and a robust safety net for unwanted babies, it’s not even clear whether the anti-abortion movement cares much at all about life after birth. For me, being pro choice is valuing what everyone chooses as best for themselves and their families. If an abortion is needed to save a woman’s life or save their future, then that’s their decision. And if a woman chooses to have a baby, then we should be working to ensure that the child is healthy and well.