Daniel K. Williams, whom I think is a very sincere anti-abortion advocate, recently wrote an opinion piece that the best way to “save unborn lives” is to make sure that expectant mothers have the resources they need. He pointed out that 42 percent of the women who had abortions had incomes below the poverty level and noted that one study found that 40 percent of women having abortions cited financial reasons as the reason. He said the focus was too much on bans and not enough on help.
What Mr. Williams doesn’t seem to realize is that the so called “pro-life movement” is not about saving lives. You don’t see “pro-lifers” advocating for gun safety laws or school lunch programs. You don’t see them pushing for medical assistance for pregnant women.
It is about control of women. If this weren’t the case, do you think states would insist that a woman continue to carry a damaged or non-viable fetus even if it puts her life in danger? Would they be opposing birth control methods? This is about the woman, not the baby.
There's irony that if the Christian Nationalists succeed, they won't allow women to run for office or preach in a church. I wonder how MTG and Boebert will feel about that.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least there's one good thing.
ReplyDeleteGuaranteed that some of the anti-abortionists had an abortion or their partner did. How I wish we could find out.
ReplyDelete