The Value of Lives

 The Value of Lives

 

Pregnancy Photo from The Hill

 

On June 24^th of 2022, Roe. V. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. This led to masses of women and men all over the world protesting government buildings. Asking questions like; why should the government have control over women’s bodies and their reproductive rights? With abortion clinics closing and less places available to complete the procedure, many children are being born that might not have been if Roe. V. Wade was not overturned. Yes, many lives of unborn children were “saved” but that does not take into consideration how many lives of those pregnant women were taken, or how women could continue to get abortions out of state. There are also no exceptions when it comes to how women got pregnant. No matter if she wanted it to happen or not She is now forced to live with it. Banning abortions may have seemed like the right thing to do, but it was the root cause of many other issues when it is viewed from a different angle. 

 

According to the American University of Washington DC, “Now that abortion is banned in some states, it is likely that access to abortion care in life-threatening circumstances will be even harder to provide.” The overturning of Roe. V. Wade has made it harder for pregnant women who are experiencing life-threatening circumstances to find abortion care. This means that even if the child survives, it is less likely that the woman will survive. One life was saved, and one was lost. So where does that leave us? While aiming to save the lives of unborn children by banning abortion, death rates amongst pregnant women will inadvertently rise. The American University of Washington DC states that “The only alternative to abortion is childbirth, which has a 14 times higher risk of death than that abortion. So, in denying a person access to a wanted abortion, states are forcing people to assume significant medical risk against their will.” Criminalizing abortion has created an environment where women are forced to carry to term even in the event that they are not physically or financially stable to support a child. In the act of trying to save the lives of unborn children from abortion, the lives of many women will be lost. Is that actually valuing life and trying to save it? It does not seem like it to me. 

 

Not only did banning abortions in certain states create a higher death rate amongst pregnant women, but it also created a higher rate of out of state abortion needs. With abortion clinics “closing or relocating” as said in a Forbes article, women who need abortions are being sent running out of state In order to try and receive one. People are going as far as traveling from their own home state in order to find relief in an out of state abortion clinic. We saw this in New Mexico after abortions had been banned in Texas, as stated by an article entitled The Fight for Abortion after Roe Falls. The overturning of Roe. V. Wade did not ban abortions all over the United States, it gave the individual states the choice to ban abortions on their own. Due to the fact that there are plenty of states that have banned abortion and plenty that have not, many women have begun traveling out of their states in order to find an abortion clinic that could help them. The overturning of Roe. V. Wade did not ban abortions, it made them less accessible. That does raise many question, why was Roe. V. Wade overturned? If women are still going to get abortions, but not in the state they live in, why even give the states the choice to ban abortions? Why would we not just allow women the ability to receive a safe abortion in her home state? Women have continued to get abortions, they are now forced to go out of their way to get them, so in all actuality, what was the point?

 

Some might argue that there is a very reasonable point and explanation for this. The opposing side, the pro-life side, might bring up points such as the following: If a woman was not ready to have a child then she should not have had sex. This could be true but in a number of cases the woman did not have a choice in the matter. The situation of sex could have been forced upon the woman against her will, yet she is being forced to live with the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. They might also say that putting the child up for adoption is a better route to use than abortion. This would make sense, but again it is not always the case that the woman is physically able to carry to term. She may have conflicting medical issues that require her to choose herself or the child. There are many points made by the opposition that raise good questions, but don’t consider the entirety of what could possibly make the situation tough on the woman.  

 

Many women in the United Stated today have had their reproductive rights taken away from them on the basis of “pro-life.” This was intended with the purpose to save lives of those unborn children from abortions, but in reality, it does not take into consideration all of the other outcomes that this would cause. It has caused a rise in death rates amongst pregnant women in the United States, and it has caused an increase in out of state abortion needs. It also does not begin to consider how the woman might have gotten pregnant, and in many states, there are no exceptions. Women all over the United States are suffering because they cannot seem to find a solution when in reality, women’s rights are rights and need to be treated like it.