OPINION: ‘Pro-life’ not in favor of all life
Movement forgets about livelihood of mothers, children
By Mireilly Gonzalez
Published Saturday, Sept. 24, 2022
Roe v. Wade was passed but it was then overruled after almost 50 years in a 6-3 ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
in 1969, Norma McCorvey brought up the case of abortion to her local government official, Wade. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a broad right conferred by the U.S. Constitution.
Roe v. Wade was controversial at the time, and remained so. Some criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to consider abortion a “civil right” instead of a “human right.” Others criticized the ruling as a form of judicial activism–which meant the ruling was made with bias, or very dependent on the judges’ views.Tthe ruling also determined the states had some leeway to modify their own abortion laws, but any modifications would be made under strict scrutiny. This would later change, however.
in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Stacey, abortion was still upheld as a civil right; however, its strict scrutiny was changed to undue burden. In short, this gave more power to the state, allowing them to “regulate abortion as long as it does not place an undue burden on women trying to seek abortion services,” according to the PubMed.gov website.
Last May, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, won the 28th District runoff. Challenger Jessica Cisneros lost by less than 300 votes. Cuellar won national attention for the FBI raid on his house, as well as being the only Democrat to protest against abortion.
“Cisneros criticized his opposition to abortion in light of a draft majority opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” according to a May 25 article by Sandra Sanchez on abc27.com.
In regard to the criticism, Cuellar reportedly responded, “Let me be.”
I feel very strongly because I know it’s a human life.
I’m pro-choice. Nonetheless, I do understand where many of the pro-life arguments come from. To explain myself, I think I might direct you to a quote: “This is not pro-life. This is pro-birth.” This quote is one of the stances frequently referred to by those who are pro-choice. Another, “It is a great kindness to keep the child. But it is not required …” is cited in a pro-choice movement paper.
Many restrictive pro-lifers think of abortion as taking a life. Nonetheless, they fail to consider anything else about the fetus’s future livelihood—their education, their health, their house.
For instance, California has the most homeless people and is the sixth state with the highest abortion rates. Florida is the third state with the most homeless people and is the fifth state with the highest abortion rates.
California and Texas are the top states with the lowest education rates: 83.92% and 84.36% respectively. And yet in California and Florida, abortion remains legal.
In Texas, women have to arrange traveling outside of the state—if they can at all. So what happens with those who may not be able to?
There was a story about a young woman who was forced into motherhood by Texas’ new anti-abortion laws. She was misguided by organizations posing as “Planned Parenthood,” but who actually meant ill toward her, wanting to dissuade her from getting an abortion. They kept her misinformed for so long, the time for legal abortion lapsed for her, and she had her baby.
I think we need to be more compassionate about these women’s lives. No matter who they are, or what your own beliefs are, you cannot force people to make decisions about their own bodies. Like the scholar said, you aren’t pro-life, but rather pro-birth, if you insist on just protecting fetus’s lives, but turn away from adult women who are in no condition to have a baby at that point in their lives.
I will close with another remark I heard that stuck with me: “It would be a great kindness to keep the baby, but it is not required.”