Financial Concerns with Implementing Abortion-Restricting Laws, Why the Conservative Right Can’t Afford the Solution, and an Explanation Why Forced Pregnancy, via Abortion Bans, is Rape
“If people aren’t willing to part with their superfluous cash in order to fund a cause that would prevent what they claim is a monumental human rights atrocity, in reality, these frugal pundits don’t truly believe any rights-violations are occurring…. Or they could simply believe that money is more important than human rights and human life. Either way, we shouldn’t be listening to people so morally vacant.”
– Ella Moore, “Footing the “No Kill” Bill”
Accompanying a myriad of reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) was based on the premise that women should not be subjected to abide by laws that force them to pay for pregnancy expenses and suffer financially as a result of not being permitted to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Instantly upon reading this introductory sentence, you are probably thinking, “But this doesn’t make sense. After all, there is no law that forces all pregnant women to endure sonograms, receive prenatal care, take vitamins, or buy maternity clothes, because women are free to live out the duration of pregnancy in seclusion, or adhere to anti-medicine religious beliefs, are they not? Women don’t have to spend a dime on pregnancy-related expenses if they don’t want to.” And if you are thinking this, let me assure you that you are right…. but you’ve also missed the point.
If passed and implemented abortion-restricting laws delay abortion-seeking women’s ability to terminate pregnancy as soon as they wish, or even if (or when) abortion is banned in general (perhaps with the exception that the mother will die without one), then this means that many women are (or will be) forced to remain pregnant against their will as a result of these laws. This may mostly be due to their desire to be law-abiding citizens and not law-breaking criminals…. which isn’t exactly a choice for those who perceive avoiding illegal behavior as obligatory instead of optional.
Besides this, although pregnant women may theoretically be able to avoid shelling out any cash to pay for expenses such as prenatal care, the fact of the matter remains that pregnancy prevents many (or most or all) women from earning as much income as they previously did or could while not pregnant. Pregnancy also inhibits women from being able to as successfully provide for any previous children under their care. And this exactly why women should only be expected to endure forty weeks of pregnancy, and days or months of post-natal mending, voluntarily, and never due to coercion or force. In other words, even if pregnant women could somehow avoid spending money on expenses such as maternity clothes and prenatal vitamins, the mere state of being pregnant interferes (either slightly or completely) with many women’s abilities to do their jobs, and thus earn as high of a paycheck as they normally would. The third trimester of pregnancy often dramatically limits mobility and overall health, and this limitation becomes exacerbated the closer a woman is to her delivery date. (When I was pregnant with my daughter, like many women, working became impossible in my third trimester, and my bank balance took a hit. If I didn’t have my husband to “pick up the financial slack,” I would have been destitute- a poor, homeless, bloated pregnant woman with ridiculously swollen feet.)
Setting aside the reduced or nonexistent income a woman earns on maternity leave, if birth occurs via cesarean section, she could easily be out of work for a month or more, depending on the duration of her recovery from this major form of surgery. (It may also be pertinent to note that c-sections are much more common than they use to be. Rather than comprising three to five percent of all births, about 25 percent of women bring children into the world this way…. Mostly because God forbid if obstetricians can’t schedule our births around their rounds of golf.) So even if gestation incurs no additional expense, it cannot be disputed that not only is birth itself is very expensive, but that the ability to earn a paycheck comparable to pre-pregnancy income is difficult and unlikely. And many women simply cannot afford this financial reduction, plus the added expense of labor and birth.
At this point, the predictable response is, “If you can’t afford to be pregnant, don’t have sex.” This typical retort is derived from the “you-dug-your-own-grave” perspective, or the “take-your-medicine-like-a-good-girl” mantra. However, have no fear ye sex lovers of the world. This objection will be easily dispatched momentarily. Pay attention to the upcoming paragraph that contains terms like “Action A” and “Consequence B,” if you feel the need to skip on down to the part of this essay that deals with the obtusely dismissive mandate that poor people should be abstinent. For the moment, the fact of the matter is that the natural prevelence and human predilection towards sex results in the necessity of the existence of abortion as an option. How elitist do we have to be in order to validate the idea that only wealthy people may enjoy sex, because they can afford the cost of unintended pregnancy? It is bad enough that the “lower class” are deprived of healthy, affordable food, safe and secure housing, a benificial education, and adequate healthcare, but now the close-minded, “well-off” masses wish to popularize the normative claim that the poor should be deprived of sex as well. But without an easily accessible “fallback option,” or a contingency plan, or even call it “the cure for pregnancy” if you like, that is exactly what abortion opponents are asserting- that only those who are “fiscally superior” are permitted to or capable of having sex without being forced to bear the life-shattering consequences supported and caused by abortion-restricting laws or bans.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared long ago that states were forbidden from enforcing abortion restrictions and bans, unless these laws resulted and were contrived in the interest of protecting women’s health. But since lower-income women, and any previous children they may have, risk further destitution, due to the financial toll of unwanted pregnancy, and there is a obvious link between a lack of money to buy food and malnurishment or death via starvation (who knew?), any restriction on the ability to access safe abortions is never in the interest of poor women’s health. Therefore, if pro-life groups wish to continue crossing the ever-increasing fine line between legally permittable anti-abortion laws and direct violations of the Court’s rulings, then the money to cover unwanted pregnancies has to come from somewhere, “in the interest of women’s health.” This is very simple logic.
So the question du jour is, “Who should pay for the cost of “forced unwanted pregnancy” for women who otherwise would have an abortion, but cannot due to the plethora of laws that restrict and/or make it extremely difficult to terminate pregnancy?” If abortion freedoms are completely repealed, in one or more states or country-wide, who foots the bill for women who cannot afford to be pregnant, but also can’t afford to risk imprisonment by seeking out an illegal abortion? Do the taxpayers pick up the tab? And if so, which taxpayers? Should pro-choice advocates be forced to pay taxes to cover the expense of unwanted but legally mandated pregnancies, when they are avidly and philosophically opposed to the concept of forced pregnancy?
Surely not. After all, pro-life advocates are fiercely against the thought of their tax dollars being used to fund abortions, so much so that they refuse to even fund Planned Parenthood, an institution that prevents infinitely more abortions than it administers, through the low-cost dispensing of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions from occurring at a higher rate. If pro-life supporters can construct laws, employ propaganda, and pretty much throw a tantrum at the mere mention of their hard-earned cash funding a medical procedure that they morally oppose, the pro-choice populace should not be obligated to fund the prenatal care and birth of forced, unwanted pregnancies on the same grounds. As will be explained further on, if required to pay taxes to fund this predicament, pro-choice advocates would then be funding the legally-sanctioned rape of unwillingly pregnant women. And I can’t imagine any of them jumping on this bandwagon instead of burning it to the ground.
However, if pro-life, conservative constituents continue to implement laws that make it virtually impossible for low-income women to terminate pregnancy, or if they achieve their ultimate goal of overturning the federally-supported, Supreme Court-interpreted constitutional rights outlined in the Roe v. Wade decision (1973), then it’s high time that they put their principles to the test, and “stick their money where their mouths are.” This means that any woman, regardless of income, should be entitled to funds provided by the pro-life movement, if she should become pregnant, wishes to obtain an abortion, but is unable to, due to a pro-life-implemented law or legal restriction. (Proving that she truly wants an abortion, and isn’t just after “free money,” would pretty much be impossible, but I digress. One should never derive “an ought from an is,” after all. Thank you, David Hume.)
Why would this be the case? Well, it all goes back to the pre-designated inalienable rights of Americans, and indeed all citizens of the world, regardless of whether these rights are recognized by an individual’s government. In regards to the theory that forced, unwanted pregnancy logically mandates pro-life funding, it simply comes down to the wording of the fourteenth amendment. (Tea Party originalists should really pay attention.)
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a “hands off” policy for the states to prevent abortion bans in the first trimester, recognized a woman’s integral, constitutionally-protected right to privacy. The legal precedent for the Court’s decision in Roe was the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which plainly established citizens’ constitutional rights to privacy. As it applies to reproductive freedom, a person is entitled to a “zone of privacy” when choosing whether or not to use contraceptives. (It’s nobody’s business whether or not you used them, used them properly, or if they worked.) But the most important aspect of the Roe v. Wade decision, as it applies to the argument at issue for this article, is the expansion of privacy rights to include freedom from coercion, whether physical or psychological, in regards to the individual private decisions one makes about one’s body (autonomy) and reproduction. Certainly a law that criminalizes abortion would coerce women into remaining pregnant in order to avoid legal reprisal. And nauseatingly enough, other laws, such as those proposed by North Dakota and Nebraska, allow for “justifiable homicide” in defense of a fetus that a person believes is threatened by imminent harm. The enactment of this law not only permits the killing of abortion doctors who, by occupation, “threaten to harm fetuses,” but due to its wording would also prohibit the criminalization of killing pregnant women who intend to “harm their fetuses,” via abortion, as well. (How one protects a fetus by killing the “host body” it is dependent upon for survival, I have no idea. But the wording of the law suggests that the killer need not be successful in preventing harm to the fetus, just that if he was trying to protect it from coming to harm, he didn’t commit murder and his actions were justified.) If anything coerces a woman to remain pregnant against her will, it’s the knowledge that her state would morally and legally permit her execution just for attempting or considering abortion as an option.
Furthermore, forcing women to remain pregnant against their will not only violates our most sacred and cherished of rights, our autonomy, a right from which all other rights are derived, but it also deprives abortion-seeking women of liberty and property, since these two attainments are dependent upon self-actualization and financial stability, both of which can easily be thwarted by unwanted (and even consensual) pregnancy. Not only that, but since carrying a fetus to term puts women’s lives in danger far more than first trimester abortions (and all abortions), it is possible (or even likely, depending on a woman’s health and access to competent medical care) that forced pregnancy could infringe upon a woman’s right to live. But given that restricting abortion access, or banning the practice altogether, is likely to cause violations of the right to pursue liberty or hold property, due to pregnancy’s effect on income, pro-life advocates are morally obligated to fund programs that financially support unwanted, legally mandated pregnancies…. At least until the lawsuits come rolling in because of the pregnancy-related deaths of women who were unable to access legal abortions and subsequently died of pre-eclampsia or any of the other scores of ways pregnancy can kill a woman.
But not just low-income women should receive pro-life-garnished funding. Point of fact, any woman who wants to terminate pregnancy, but is unable to do so under a new pro-life-desired legal paradigm, should receive a piece of the financial pie as well. And this is because, regardless of whether a woman can afford pregnancy-related expenses or take time off work, forcing her to “dip into her savings” to pay for the result of pro-life ideologies, while women who earn less are given a reprieve from financial stress, and compensation for their autonomy-revoking anguish, is a form of discrimination. This discrimination would be akin to worker’s compensation that is only dispensed to employees who make minimum wage, but not to employees who earn higher salaries. If both types of workers are injured on the job, then they are both entitled to payment until they are back on their feet. Since virtually all pregnant women become pregnant through sex, then compensating one woman for doing the same action as another, more financially stable uncompensated woman treats the former as if she did nothing wrong, or engaged in a blameless action, but treats the latter as if she “dug her own grave and now must lie in it.”
This same type of thinking applies to programs like unemployment and welfare. People receive funds from these programs in order to help them deal with circumstances that are beyond their control, such as a lousy economy, cutbacks, and a lack of available jobs. But funding unwanted, forced pregnancy would mean contributing money to those who are perceived as “directly responsible” for their situations, no matter how much money was in their bank accounts when they conceived.
And yet, funding unwanted pregnancies is only a minimal act of contrition pro-lifers should perform if they continue down the “freedom and autonomy-squashing” mission they have been spear-heading since President Obama took office. (Although, the Roe v. Wade decision has been continually chipped away long before this.) There is perhaps no organized group better at legal manipulation, or sneaking reproduction laws through the back door, when they clearly cannot be admitted through the front, than the pro-life movement. Legal anti-abortion declarations, such as the “justifiable homicide law,” are cleverly disguised as a means to protect the rights and health of women, thus taking advantage of the Court’s stipulation that abortion rights cannot be restricted, unless the law that does so is in the interest of prolonging female lives and safe-guarding their health. But in reality, since even non-life-saving abortions are far safer for women than 40 weeks of gestation and birth, all these laws do is make it more difficult for women to choose the safer option of pregnancy termination. In just a matter of a few years, conservative right-wingers have enacted a plethora of rights-reducing laws. Some of these laws are in accord with the Supreme Court’s stipulation that only post-viable fetuses at 24 weeks or older are to be considered persons. But most are just blatant attempts to prevent abortions from occurring which, generally speaking, violates women’s constitutional rights and the Supreme Court’s decision regarding federal superiority in this issue over state interests. Here are a few of them for your edification.
• Physician and Hospital Requirements:
18 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
• Gestational Limit Laws:
41 states prohibit abortions generally, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often around 24 weeks.
• “Partial-Birth” Abortion Laws:
19 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortions. But only three of these laws apply only to post-viable fetuses.
• Coverage by Private Insurance Laws:
8 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, most often limiting coverage only to when the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.
• Refusal Laws:
46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow any healthcare institution to refuse to perform abortions, but 16 of these 43 states limit refusal to private or religious institutions.
• State-Mandated Counseling Laws:
17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information purporting the truth of at least one of the following outright falsities that have been scientifically proven to be total hogwash:
~ The link between abortion and breast cancer (5 states)
~ That pre-third-tremester fetuses are able ability to feel pain (12 states)
~ And the nonexistence of long-term mental health consequences for women who receive abortions (8 states).
(Yes, you read that right. 17 states legally require that women be lied to before seeking an abortion, in the hopes that through false information, they will be manipulated into changing their minds.)
• Waiting Period Laws:
26 (twenty-six!) states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when she receives counseling and when the procedure is performed. Nine of these states have laws that effectively require women to make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure. For citizens who live far from a safe and legal clinic, this can be a nightmarishly inconvenient situation that doesn’t necessarily prevent abortions, and certainly doesn’t miraculously cause women to suddenly fall in love with their previously unwanted fetuses…. but it does delay when women can obtain the procedure. So what was once a matter of aborting a six-week-old microscopic cluster of cells instead becomes the termination of further-gestated pregnancies.
• Parental Involvement Laws:
38 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 21 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure (so imagine this for daughters of divorced parents separated by hundreds of miles). Out of these, 12 require that only one or both parents be notified. And 5 states require both parental consent and notification.
• And finally, Public Funding Laws (the crux of the issue debated here):
17 states use their own funds to pay for only most medically necessary abortions, but just for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available to save a pregnant woman’s or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In direct defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
(Guttmacher Institute, 2013)
The problem is, I cannot imagine even one pro-life advocate who would support or agree that an abortion ban should mandate pro-life-derived funding for women who would be forced to remain pregnant against their will. But is this because all pro-lifers are parsimonious? Probably not. Chances are that conceiving (pardon the pun) of this awkward and unacceptable repercussion to anti-abortion laws strikes a hidden cord somewhere inside most pro-life supporters, in a part of their brains somehow still sensitive to the power of logic. You see, most “pro-lifers” are against mandatory pregnancy in the case of conception due to rape. If a woman conceives because of rape, most pro-life supporters believe abortion is morally permissible. (Of course, this is highly illogical. Either fetuses have a right to live or they don’t. Why is it allowable to kill a fetus because of the sins if its father? It isn’t as if the fetus had anything to do with the rape. Why should it be “punished?” If I’m raped tomorrow, can I go ahead afterwards and execute an innocent bystander whose just waiting to catch a bus? Sometimes it is very easy to spot the “losing side” of a debate, because it’s the side so full of logical holes that it is almost visibly sinking.) And many pro-life supporters have no issue with financially assisting a low-income woman in terminating her rape-conceived pregnancy. But here is where the possible reason for this intuitive rejection comes into play. It’s likely that all reasonable people, regardless of their stance on abortion, perceive forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will as a form of rape. Seem far-fetched? It isn’t, really.
Whether you are consciously aware of it or not, forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a form of rape. And any law that prohibits women who do not want to remain pregnant from obtaining abortions is sanctioned rape by the government. And here is why. As we are all aware, the definition of rape includes being penetrated by an object or body part through an orifice designated or optional for sex, without the consent of the victim, or after the victim has refused penetration, or even if the victim changes his or her mind about the act of penetration and the penetrator refuses to comply. A fetus is an object, and barring any developmental deficiencies, it will form or already has body parts. Pregnancy can only occur through some sort of penetration, whether it be by a penis, syringe, or even turkey-baster type of object.
Almost all women who seek abortions, do so not because they hate fetuses or babies, and not because they develop a hankering to kill the fetus they harbor, but because they simply no longer wish to be pregnant. And early gestational abortions happen to result in the death of non-viable fetuses. If women were somehow able to donate or agree to transfer their uterine contents to willing wombs, I’m sure they would. After all, the point is to no longer be pregnant not to kill the fetus. And far more often than not, the desire to terminate pregnancy pertains directly to the fact that full-term pregnancy is very difficult, uncomfortable to outright painful, and life-threatening (even to a small extent). I mean, women are far healthier not being pregnant than they are pregnant. The knowledge of this arduous endeavor that causes the desire to abort it is either present before conception occurs or afterwards, in which the woman suddenly realizes that spending the majority of her time hanging over a toilet is no way to live or is interfering with her ability to live her life on her terms.
And so, even if women consent to the sex that causes the pregnancy, that does not mean they therefore consent to pregnancy itself. “Why not?” you may ask. This is simply because we do not adopt and apply this ideology to any other situation in human existence. The truth of the mandate that, “Consenting to engage in “Action A,” knowing full well that Action A could possibly lead to “Consequence B,” means that one also consents to Consequence B,” is wholly dismissed by everyone, in every single circumstance except pregnancy through consensual sex. For example, agreeing to go rock climbing, when you are aware that you could possibly fall off a cliff, does not mean you consent to falling if you do, nor does it mean you must now deal with the repercussions of your fall and deny yourself access to treatments that will heal your injuries. Volunteering to travel to Africa, and consenting to donate your own malaria drugs to a toddler, so that he doesn’t become yet another death statistic, does not mean that if you contract malaria that you consented to die the moment you gave your meds away. And it certainly doesn’t mean that you must refuse medication that will render the disease nonexistent because you “should’ve known better” than to “engage in Action A,” which was the donation of your pill supply. Consenting to go for a walk doesn’t mean you consent to being hit by a drunk driver or person too busy texting while driving to see you, even if you were aware that this could happen when you decided to go for the walk. And consenting to go on a date, knowing that approximately one in four American women become the victims of rape or sexual assault in their lifetimes, and that well over three-quarters of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, usually while on a date or at a party, does not mean that you consent to your date throwing his body upon you while you struggle to free yourself as he rapes you. Nor does your foreknowledge mean you consented to be raped, and therefore “it doesn’t count as rape.” And you obviously may take part in any procedures, treatments, or counseling services that could help in undoing the damage caused on that date- despite your consent to the initial action, without which would have rendered the rape nonexistent. Lastly, you also have the right to prosecute or civilly sue the rapist bastard, and attempt to collect any compensation that enables you to deal with the consequences, that you were fully aware of as possibilities, when you consented to the action that resulted in your present state of being.
Likewise, women who are legally compelled and forced to remain pregnant against their will should also be entitled to compensation, especially since prosecuting their state government for enacting an unjust law isn’t likely to pan out. But back to the issue at hand. Why would an abortion ban cause the rape of abortion-seeking women? Perhaps a parallel scenario would help drive the point home. Bear in mind, as mentioned previously, most women choose to terminate pregnancy because being pregnant is too difficult for them, either in general or due to their personal situations at that point in their lives. So imagine a woman who is a virgin. She decides she is ready to have sex with her boyfriend. So she consents to his initial penile penetration. The act progresses without issue until she suddenly changes her mind and no longer wishes to continue to engage in sex anymore. The reason why she changes her mind and rescinds her consent is inconsequential, but perhaps the sex is too uncomfortable for her to bear. Perhaps she is simply dissatisfied with his performance. Or perhaps she comes from a conservative Muslim background, and she wishes to abort the act before her hymen breaks and she subsequently “dishonors” her family. It doesn’t matter. Whatever the reason, the point is, she tells her boyfriend to stop. If he refuses to get off her (and out of her), from the moment she no longer wishes to follow through with the consequences (penetration) of her initial action (consenting to penetration), and she wants the object inside her removed from her body, her boyfriend is guilty of rape, morally and legally, from that point on. So, boys and girls, what does this resemble?
Pregnant, abortion-seeking women may consent to the action that led to their undesired situation, just as the woman in the above example consented to the action that led to her undesired situation. For the “Muslim virgin,” “Action A” was initial penetration, and the undesired consequence (B) was ongoing penetration, or “completion” of the sexual act. For women in a pseudo-hypothetical, but imminent, world where reproductive freedom is becoming progressively in shorter supply leading to abortion bans, “Action A” is consensual sex, and the unwanted consequence (B) is pregnancy. We are comparing apples to apples here. If the woman from the example above has a right for her boyfriend to remove the unwanted object from her body (his penis), lest he be guilty of rape, then so too do all women possess the right for “the state” to remove, or at least allow for the removal of, the unwanted object (the embryo or fetus) from their bodies, lest the government become collective rapists.
And when such state-imposed laws exist that dramatically limit women’s abilities from obtaining access to this “removal,” those laws become a metaphorical gag shoved down the throats of women longing to shout, “Get that thing out of me!” Thus, abortion-restricting laws are complicit in the rape of all abortion-seeking pregnant women. Their contribution is clear. So just like rape victims are entitled to restitution, in the form of justice or even monetary compensation, pregnant women who are forced by the law to endure an “undesired fetal penetration of their bodies” should be given whatever compensation those who are responsible for their predicaments can provide. If pro-life laws seek to stifle the voices of all women, so that our autonomous desires become less important than the human cells our wombs contain, less important than the logically unjustified religious beliefs of irrational zealots, and less important than conservative political sexism, then instead of “Eye for an eye,” I say, “Mouth for a mouth.” If the anti-abortion movement seeks to gag our mouths, then they must do the same, and put their money where their mouths are.
However, it doesn’t require keen insight to predict that this is something these people will never do. If there is one thing “Tea Party” members, right-wing conservatives, and Republicans love more than conspiring to set feminism back fifty years, it’s telling everyone not to touch their money. But it cannot be ignored that financial hardship plays a significant role in many women’s decisions to terminate pregnancy, and the solution to this problem, and hence what would probably put a substantial dent in decreasing abortion rates, is to simply fund unwanted pregnancies for their duration until birth (and any post-natal care the woman may need).
So this prompts me to ask, “If a person isn’t willing to part with his or her money in order to fund a cause that would prevent what he or she believes is a monumental human rights atrocity, how much of an atrocity can the person actually and truly believe it is?” Many people give money to charity, if they can spare it, in the hopes that their financial donation will help fix or change the world. So why don’t pro-life affiliates offer to charitably donate their cash to women in exchange for them choosing not to have an abortion? The answer is simple, and in fact, I’ve stated as much in several different articles on abortion rights. The shocking cold truth is that most pro-lifers don’t care about the deaths of embryos and fetuses. If they did, we’d hear news stories every night on how another IVF clinic was raided, and “about-to-expire” embryos were “liberated” and implanted in “willing” wombs. We’d hear about how pregnant women were kidnapped on the way to the abortion clinic and held captive until their fetuses were viable. But we don’t hear about these events happening. Ever. Are these actions any more drastic than blocking abortion facility doors with picket lines, shouting hurtful epithets like “baby killer” at women trying to get in, bombing clinics, and shooting doctors? Of course not. If anything, kidnapping and robbery are less violent acts than gun shot wounds, murder, and explosions.
So I’ll state it once again for the record. It isn’t fetal death that bugs anti-abortion advocates. It’s female freedom, self-determination, and autonomy. And it’s what will happen to a world in which all women have these things. Women will excel. They’ll compete for jobs. They’ll further “out-educate” their male counterparts. They’ll call more of the shots in business, in relationships, and in government. And they’ll become truly independent, emotionally and financially. Speaking of money in the mouth, let’s chew on that for a while. I like the taste. How about you?
Feel free to leave a reply using the form below!