If you haven’t heard, Ohio is the most recent culprit in trying to undermine the groundbreaking Roe vs. Wade ruling. That may sound harsh, especially considering what happened in the end, but I would like to make it clear that this is not a win for the pro-choice voice.
To summarize, Ohio lawmakers approved a policy known as the “Heartbeat Bill” on Tuesday, December 6th. This bill would ban all abortions after there is a detectable heartbeat, usually around six week’s gestation. For clarity as to the absurdity of this law, most women are not even aware they are pregnant at six week’s gestation. In short, this bill would be the closest thing to completely banning abortion as a state could potentially get.
And as a gentle reminder, banning abortion does not get rid of them. This has been shown time and time again; the most effective ways to reduce the number of abortions performed are to supply comprehensive sexual education and affordable contraception. Banning abortion is not only unconstitutional, but will only result in the death of more women as they resort to back-alleyways and coat hangers.
According to CNN, Ohio’s current legislation “forbids abortions of…viable fetuses, or fetuses that can survive outside the womb...Exceptions are made in cases where the woman’s health is at serious risk”. Viability usually exists around 24 week’s gestation.
A relief in some ways and a heartbreak in others, Ohio Governor Kasich vetoed the “heartbeat bill”. CNN reported his statement that this veto was made in order to evade the legal battle sure to follow the law’s enactment. Similar bills passed in states such as Arkansas and North Dakota were struck down as unconstitutional, and Kasich foresaw this impending battle.
However, Kasich did amend the current law to remove the viability test. Now, all abortions after 20 week’s gestation are illegal. For perspective, 20,000 abortions take place each year in the state of Ohio, and only 2 percent of them happen after 20 weeks (Gabriel Mann, Naral Pro-Choice Ohio spokesman, as reported by NYT). From a pro-life perspective, this really does nothing for getting rid of abortions. It bans only those that take place around the time of viability, and these are the ones most women do not want to abort. These are for medical and safety reasons. Even when a fetus is unviable, a women has to carry the pregnancy through unless her life is in immediate or express danger.
No one likes abortion. Pro-choice does not mean anti-life. To ask women who probably planned their pregnancy to carry a life that will not survive outside of them is to inflict tremendous emotional, physical, and psychological trauma upon them that could be avoided. Perhaps a woman would choose this, and choose to have a funeral for her lost child. Perhaps that’s how she and her familychoose to cope. But this is the crux of “pro-choice”; this is not the choice of all women, and to force us to will diminish our rights as granted to us by the Supreme Court only 43 years ago.
I understand the moral conundrum people face in determining their stance on abortion. But to repeat, reversing Roe v. Wade will not get rid of abortions. This is an unfortunate truth I must come to grips with on topics like gun control; completely banning the thing will not get rid of the thing. People will always find a way. The difference between abortion and gun control however, is that guns take lives full of experience and relationships, and abortion does not. I am not saying the lives of fetuses are not important; they can feel pain and they know their mother’s voice. But the ethics come down to this: would you rather end a pregnancy before you know the face of your child, or would you rather give birth to a life you may not be able to support? Who you cannot afford? Who may suffer whether you raise them yourself or not?
The adoption argument is a compelling one. But according to Children’s Rights.org, “there are approximately 415,000 children in foster care in the United States [on any given day]”. Good Housekeeping reported on December 8th of 2015 that there were “107,918 foster children eligible and waiting for adoption”. For anyone who has even an inkling of understanding the parentless child system in America, to make children wait for a safe home for the extended and dangerous time that so many of them do is often extensively damaging to the soul. Yes, this could be perceived as an opinion. But as pro-choice citizens prepare for eventual legal war with President-Elect Donald Trump’s anticipated Supreme Court, we must ask ourselves who we’re passing laws for. Is it for our moral compass, or the lives of those we’re dictating?
I find it heartwarming that the Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis cares so deeply about the lives of Ohio and America’s unborn. But as an adult, white male, how can he have any understanding of what it’s like to be put in the position of choosing your body and self over that of a life you may not have planned for? Is it crueler to spare that child a life of unnecessary hardship, or to bring them into a world that keeps passing laws which ignore and belittle their existence? Sure, they may live a life of security with an adopted family. But what about the process to adopt that's overwhelmingly complex? It's additionally important to note that men like Gonidakis will never be able to imagine the circumstances moms may have lived that lead them to make the fearful decision of choosing abortion over even just the possibility of their children experiencing similar struggles.
To Mr. Trump, Mr. Kasich, and Mr. Gonidakis, I ask you this: if you are serious about “eradicating abortion” during your party’s administration, what will you do for the lives you’ve “saved” once they’re here? Will you pass comprehensive social security nets? Will you help those children when their parents cannot afford their food or shelter? What will you do to prove that you’re truly “pro-life”, and not just “pro-birth”? I want to have faith in you. I don’t right now. Please prove me wrong, or admit that you are.
