roe v wade

 I am a pro-life democrat, and let me tell you, these last few weeks have been a real struggle for me. People who call themselves pro-life don't think I am "pro-life enough" because of my liberal stance. People who call them selves pro-choice don't think I am "a real liberal" because of this singular issue. 

Yet the reality is that most people are realistically against abortion. As someone who has heard a lot from both sides it comes down to two entirely different issues. 

Let's start with the side that I started on. I first heard the term abortion when I was in seventh grade and I had to write my first persuasive essay. I though, "Killing babies, say less." In my conservative bubble I could literally not even imagine a woman like Lindy West shouting her abortion. Throughout high school, I continued to be a loud advocate for the pro-life stance, arguing with my pro-choice Catholic friend because I could honestly not understand how someone in a pro-life religion would not be pro-life. When I got to my Southern Baptist College, I joined the Pro-life club at the first org fair before school even started. I then proceeded to become a fellow for the Joseph Graham Texas Right to Life Fellowship which included leadership requirements within my schools club as well as two intensive trainings. So when I say pro-life, I mean deep in the red, prayed outside of planned parenthood, handed out little pins with ten week old baby feet, argued on the internet pro-life. 

The thing is, the pro-life movement as it currently stand is not a movement that I stand with. While I consider myself "Pro-life", I distance myself from that label and the movements associated with that label due to their incredible shortcomings. Once the Conservative Rose(or I guess red) colored glasses were removed, I saw the pro-life movement for the political tool that it was. Abortion as a singular issue has become incredibly decisive and been the front on which most pro-life organizations stake their claim. 

Part of the issue is the religious ties. While non-paritsan, most of their funding and staff come from the Catholic Church, and the conservative portions of it at that. So, while birth control isn't a pro-life issue, because of the Catholic church's historical stance on birth control, many pro-life organizations take a stance on "abortifacients" and then loop in almost every single birth control into that group. The co-opting of the pro-life agenda by the conservative sector of Catholicism has greatly weakened the Pro-life stance by watering it down to include a much larger portion of Women's Health Care than just abortion. 

Another part of the issue is the political ties. While non-partisan, because most pro-life politicians are conservative, pro-life organizations remain eerily silent on pro-life issues that would offend their main political supporters. For example, the death penalty and gun control, though both are just as deadly as abortion, are not issues that pro-life organizations take stances on because it is "outside of the scope of their organization". Abortion and euthanasia are the only two issues on which I was educated when I participated in my trainings, and euthanasia was a singular session. Realistically, euthanasia was a decorative cause used to mask the fact that the only issue pro-life organizations care about is abortion. 

On the flip side, because abortion is such a politically divisive issue we see liberals pushing back on bills that truly are pro-women in nature, and legislating safer abortions. While countries with outright bans on abortions may have unsafe abortions, America is facing the opposite issue where abortions are unregulated to the point of unsafe practices. For example, in 2016 when Texas passed its pro-life omnibus bill, the requirements were literally just trying to make sure abortion clinics were up to surgical clinic standards as the procedure is invasive. Many pro-choice countries have stricter abotion laws because it provides safer abortions for women. 

This brings me to the liberal side of the issue. Since most liberals don't really want to argue about the fetus (we won't mention the fact that animal fetuses are more protected than human fetuses and considered part of their species and considered living from fertilization). What we will look at is the arguments about safety and access. The reality is that maternal mortality is killing women discriminately in our country. While abortion does account for a largest portion of those deaths. When we make maternal health an abortion issue we continue to fail women. 

The fact that so many women die bearing and birthing children in this country should not be an abortion issue. It should be a healthcare issue. When we look at pro-choice countries with stricter abortion laws, what we need to account for healthcare access. The discussion around abortion from most pro-choice advocates is simply that we need better healthcare. We need to reduce maternal mortality. 

So let's talk about "forced birth" the forced birth argument is one that I have seen a lot. Let me start by saying, if it were up to me, we would just have mandatory vasectomies because no one has ever died from a vasectomy, and there are significantly lower risks for the procedure and the reversal than for long-term birth control in women. 

Honestly, if your argument for abortion is that our healthcare system sucks, the solution is not to legalize abortion, but to improve healthcare. 

Is it easier for both sides if the issue is just about these unborn humans and the hypotheticals within a woman's body. Yes. Realistically legalizing or banning abortion does not change that fact that the entire issue is a red herring. Politicians have thrown us a political bone for the masses to fight over because the work of accessible, affordable, equitable healthcare would require actual work from politicians. 

To use pro-life language banning the killing of unborn babies may save lives, but it is still putting women at risk. It is putting women in fiscally vulnerable positions because we do not have adequate maternal leave, and banning abortion won't fix that. It is putting children at risk for abuse because many women stay with their abusers for the sake of the children. It is putting children at risk for food insecurity, shelter insecurity, and other results of being in the class of people that is regularly exploited for the gains of the 1%. Until we fix the systemic issues that lead women to make the choice to abort their pregnancies, we are putting a temporary hold on the death sentence that is systemic poverty. 

To use pro-choice language, allowing for women's bodily autonomy is still putting women at risk. Abortion is still a medical procedure, and is a bandaid for the fact that women in this country do not have adequate access to sex education and birth control. Pregnancy is not the only result of sex, and abortion is a stop-gap for a singular consequence of sex. Unless we are creating equitable, affordable, and accessible sex-education and birth control women will continue to undergo a procedure that could be made unnecessary in many cases just by providing adequate education and birth control. Additionally, abortion is not going to change the maternal mortality rate for elective pregnancies. Many women want to have children and are still facing death because of inadequate medical care. Abortion will not fix maternal mortality rate, better health care will.