I am devastated as I write this blog post. I am outraged that the United States of America, claiming to be the greatest county in the world, has turned the clock back half a century on women’s rights.
The landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) protected the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturned the nearly fifty year precedent, giving the power to regulate abortion access back to the states. According to NPR, abortion is already illegal or heavily restricted in at least 11 states and 11 more have laws that will do the same once they come into effect.
So, what does a future without Roe look like?
The answer is deadly. Abortions are the only lifesaving treatment for complications like that of an ectopic pregnancy, a septic uterus, or an unreleased miscarriage. NBC News reports that the U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country, likely to rise without access to this kind of necessary reproductive care— an increase in which will disproportionately affect marginalized communities living below the federal poverty line. Additionally, Human Rights Watch explains that restrictive abortion policies push pregnant people out of the healthcare system and into dangerously unregulated settings, leading to 15% of maternal deaths worldwide being the result of unsafe abortions.
Is this what a pro-life America looks like?
Because I would argue that this ruling isn’t pro-life at all.
Pro-life would mean protecting the lives and bodily autonomy of the women seeking reproductive care. It would expand resources to reduce maternal mortality rates and eliminate child poverty.
Pro-life would mean our nation’s students do not face the same trauma in their classrooms as do those in an active war zone. It would certainly not expand guns rights, making it significantly easier for people to carry handguns in public.
Pro-life would mean accepting and helping immigrants and refugees. It would not build a wall to introduce a further obstacle to saving the lives of those fleeing from violence or merely trying to achieve a better life.
Pro-life would mean investing in our foster care system, which I might add is in a crisis of overpopulation. It would not put children into a situation that increases their chances of being abused or homeless by the time they turn 18.
Pro-life would mean that everyone has access to healthcare. It would not gate keep medical or wellness resources solely for the privileged.
Pro-life is an interesting way to say pro-control over women’s bodies.
This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA Law Group specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.
CIMA Law Group Blog 