upworthy

Reproductive Rights

Reproductive Rights

Why I'm morally anti-abortion but politically pro-choice and don't feel conflicted about it

Many of us find ourselves in the messy middle of the abortion debate.

Photo credit: Canva

It's possible to be "pro-life" and pro-choice.

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America. We've seen reproductive rights swing back and forth between the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 and the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision in 2022, with passionate people on both sides either lauding or lamenting the U.S. Supreme Court.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On the one hand, some people feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not up for debate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other hand, some folks believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsYou don't have to choose between the extremes of the abortion debate.Photo credit: Canva

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life starts at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal with few restrictions.

Some people don't understand being personally anti-abortion but still wanting abortion to be legal, citing the moral conflict seemingly inherent in that equation. But I don't feel conflicted about it at all. Here's why:

There's far too much gray area to legislate abortion.

No matter what you personally believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being with the same rights as a person not dependent on a woman's body for life is a completely debatable question with no clear scientific answers.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsWhen life and personhood begin aren't easily answerable questions.Photo credit: Canva

I believe life begins at conception, but that's my own religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a proven scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it. Medicine is complex, and obstetrical medicine particularly so. It's simply not as simple as "abortion is wrong." Every pregnancy is personally and medically unique throughout—how can we effectively legislate something with so many ever-changing variables?

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.

One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsFamilies who wanted their babies have been hurt by anti-abortion laws. Photo credit: Canva

I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.

Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsThe government doesn't need to be involved in personal medical choices.Photo credit: Canva

I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands, not the government's.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsAbortion is inextricable from healthcare.Photo credit: Canva

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.

The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Just after Roe vs. Wade was passed, abortion rates skyrocketed, peaked in 1990, and then plummeted steadily for nearly two decades. Abortion was legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available did not result in increased abortion rates in the long run. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has fallen and largely stabilized since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rights, sex edComprehensive sex education and birth control are the proven ways to prevent abortion.Photo credit: Canva

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates on a societal scale are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist with lowering abortion rates in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.

The polarization of politics has made it seem like the only choices are on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can separate our own personal beliefs and convictions from what we believe the role of government should be. We can look at the data and recognize when bans may not actually be the most effective means of reducing something we want to see less of. We can listen to people's stories and acknowledge that things are not as black-and-white as they're made out to be.

An we can want to see fewer abortions and still vote to keep abortion legal without feeling morally conflicted about it.

This article originally appeared six years ago and has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
democracy
Democracy

Yelp adds warnings to crisis pregnancy centers, and Gen Z for Change played a part

Looking for appropriate care just got a whole lot easier.

Canva

Yelp adds warnings to crisis pregnancy centers.

The nonprofit group Gen Z for Change may have had something to do with Yelp changing its policy regarding crisis pregnancy centers. The online local listings directory now notifies consumers that these businesses typically don't provide medical services and may not be staffed by licensed medical professionals. Many people searching online for abortion services, especially those in states that have enacted trigger laws, see crisis pregnancy centers pop up as if they provide the desired service. Yelp now helps potential patients navigate this deceptive practice by adding a warning label over the results on its platform.

What does Gen Z for Change have to do with this change in Yelp's policy? After Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, crisis pregnancy centers, also known as "fake abortion clinics," began populating in searches for people looking for abortion care. This is a problem for multiple reasons, the main one being that vulnerable people were being deceived by these centers, whose main goal is to get the mother to carry on with the unwanted pregnancy at all costs. Gen Z for Change began flooding their online presence with negative reviews to warn potential patients.

The group was so efficient that it was able to create a program that automatically ran a prepared script to flood Yelp with negative reviews on crisis pregnancy centers. The program it designed is called S.A.F.E.R., which stands for spam, assist, fund, educate and register, and encourages users to spam Yelp in an effort to warn others. Yelp eventually disabled its review system to stop the spamming from Gen Z for Change. But it looks like Yelp took notice of the reviews being left by the activist group.

Warning on crisis pregnancy center.

Screenshot from Yelp

In August, Yelp added a notice to its listings for pregnancy centers to help differentiate them from actual abortion providers. Noorie Malik, Yelp's vice president, said in a statement, "To provide consumers with helpful information when looking for reproductive health services, Yelp’s new consumer notice will appear on Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Faith-based Crisis Pregnancy Centers business pages, informing consumers that businesses in those categories typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite."

Yelp is hoping the change will prevent people from being confused about the services provided at the centers.

There are currently more than 2,700 crisis pregnancy centers across the United States and they provide limited services, such as free pregnancy tests, peer counseling, clothes and diapers. Some centers offer ultrasounds, but the healthcare they provide is very limited. Crisis pregnancy centers are not bound by HIPAA, which could lead to violations of client privacy—a real concern in states where pregnancy termination is now illegal and citizens can turn others in to authorities.

While Yelp doesn't directly credit Gen Z for Change for its policy change, it would seem the group was able to at minimum get Yelp's attention. It's a small change that can make a big difference in a post Roe v. Wade world.

From Your Site Articles
yelp
Democracy

Texts misleading Kansas voters about abortion amendment are a reminder to read ballots carefully

The truth is the opposite of what the texts say.

Davis Hammet/Twitter

Kansas is voting on a constitutional amendment that would open the door to restrictive abortion laws.

Getting to the truth in politics is challenging as it is and it's hard enough just to get people to vote. The last thing we need is to have voters receive direct messages telling them that voting YES on an important ballot measure will do exactly the opposite of what it will do.

Yet that's what has been happening in at least one state.

In its current election, Kansas voters are being asked to vote for or against an amendment to the state's constitution that would impact abortion laws. The Value Them Both Amendment says that there's no constitutional right to an abortion and would grant legislators the authority to regulate abortions. According to NPR, it's the first ballot measure on reproductive rights in the U.S. since the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The night before the election, people in Kansas started reporting text messages that sounded very much like they came from a pro-choice source. "Women in Kansas are losing their choice on reproductive rights," the texts read. "Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women's health."

However, that's exactly the opposite of what voting yes would do. Voting yes on the amendment would open the door to more restrictive abortion laws. Voting no means keeping current regulations.

The texts came from several different 888 numbers and did not disclose who they came from.

The texts are pretty clearly meant to confuse pro-choice voters into voting for the amendment, telling them that a yes vote would protect women's reproductive rights when the opposite is true. It's blatantly misleading, but according to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, it's not illegal.

Not only do text messages about constitutional ballot initiatives not require disclaimers informing receivers of who has paid for them, but there's also nothing in the current statutes that addresses misleading wording. Lovely.

According to KMBC, the service Twilio disabled the user's account from sending out any more text messages as distributing disinformation is against the platform's terms of service. But the damage has already been done.

Naturally, people should read the ballot thoroughly before they vote and not just follow what some text tells them. However, ballots can be confusing. Language can be vague and/or biased, littered with legalese or contain muddled positives and negatives so voters aren't always clear on what they are voting for or against.

The Kansas amendment measure is confusing as it is written. Check out the language used on the ballot, as shared by The Guardian:


Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.

A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.

Shall the following be adopted?

§ 22. Regulation of abortion.Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

That's not a simple yes or no choice the way it's worded. "Do you want the state to pass restrictive abortion laws? Yes or No?" would be simple. The way this is written, you have to unravel language that's pretty clearly written to favor the amendment while also deciphering what it is you're actually voting for or against.

The text messages telling pro-choice people to vote yes because it will protect choice are 100% wrong and almost assuredly designed to confuse voters even more than the ballot already does.

It's a good reminder to ignore political messaging and to always read ballots carefully so that we know what we're voting for. Some people will go to extreme dishonest lengths to score a political win, so we must stay diligent as we exercise our civic right, privilege and responsibility.

From Your Site Articles
voting
Democracy

Teen who was publicly body shamed by Matt Gaetz helps raise $168,000 for abortion funds

This is how you respond to a bully.

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

Not Your Body, Not Your Choice.

Sometimes things are said unintentionally that can hurt feelings or cause harm but sometimes things are intended to do just that.

At the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, congressman Matt Gaetz made comments that essentially body shamed an entire demographic of people. His comments didn't go unnoticed as they made the rounds of social media. Olivia Julianna, 19, decided to make a witty response to his remarks on Twitter before Gaetz took her profile picture and shared it in what appears to be an effort to shame the teen's appearance.

Now, no one can fully say whether Gaetz intended to cause harm with his speech or his tweet until he decides to clarify his reasoning. But it sure seems Julianna's sassy response ruffled his feathers a bit. The teen made it clear that she would not tolerate body shaming by writing, "Its come to my attention that Matt Gaetz — alleged pedophile — has said that it’s always the ‘odious... 5’2 350 pound’ women that ‘nobody wants to impregnate’ who rally for abortion,” the tweet read. “I’m actually 5’11. 6’4 in heels. I wear them so the small men like you are reminded of your place.”

Gaetz is currently being federally investigated for sex trafficking. The congressman denies these claims and has currently not been charged with a crime.

Julianna let the world know in no uncertain terms that type of behavior wasn't OK. Given Gaetz's original comments about abortion rights activists looking "like a thumb" and saying, "they're like 5'2", 350 pounds," it's no surprise he came right back at the teen by sharing her profile picture to his 1.6 million followers. He captioned the picture with, "Dander raised," which according to Merriam-Webster means "to become angry."

The exchange didn't end there. Instead of backing down after the politician publicly exposed her photo to more than a million people, Julianna saw an opportunity. After the quick tiff, the teen used the increased attention to fundraise for the Gen-Z for Choice Fund, which distributes money to 50 different abortion funds across America. Julianna told Today that tweeting about the fund, which included a link, has since raised $168,000. She told Today, "I wanted to highlight the positive work that I'm doing from this very negative sphere that I've been placed in."

Congressman Gaetz seems to be going out of his way to make others upset. Even Mike Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, came out swinging, metaphorically of course in an unexpectedly strong statement on CNN. In the clip he implies that Gaetz will be unable to vote in the election due to him being incarcerated by the time November rolls around.

Julianna is the one coming out on top in this situation by using it to fundraise for a cause that is important to millions of people. I'm not sure what the future holds for this teen but something tells me she's someone we should be on the look out for in the future. She's a force.

From Your Site Articles
matt gaetz
Trending Stories