+
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM UPWORTHY
We are a small, independent media company on a mission to share the best of humanity with the world.
If you think the work we do matters, pre-ordering a copy of our first book would make a huge difference in helping us succeed.
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

Reproductive Rights

Democracy

It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.

Abortion remains an incredibly polarizing issue.

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who 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.

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

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.


There's far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling 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.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates 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 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.


This article originally appeared on 01.22.19


From Your Site Articles
culture
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
Democracy

American Medical Association president explains how abortion laws are already causing harm

'These decisions turn out to be quite complicated in a lot of instances.'

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

Abortion is a part of reproductive healthcare.

The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has created a ripple effect of confusion and frustration in the medical field as doctors struggle to navigate the nuances of providing lifesaving care to patients under new state laws prohibiting abortion.

Who would have guessed that legislators criminalizing reproductive medicine—especially when they have no medical training or expertise in what can impact a pregnancy—could backfire? Who would have thought that politicians making decisions about what healthcare a person can and can't receive could lead to increased risks for patients?

Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), knows more than the vast majority of us about why medical care should be left to medical professionals and the harm that stringent abortion laws can lead to.

"These decisions turn out to be quite complicated in a lot of instances," Resneck told journalist Chris Hayes . "So trying to make hard and fast rules in legislative bodies that apply the same across the board is just incredibly dangerous for patients."

Since the enactment of trigger laws in several states after the Supreme Court ruling, we've seen story after story of vital healthcare being denied for patients, from prescription medicines for rheumatoid arthritis to potentially lifesaving interventions in pregnancies gone wrong. Doctors are unclear on what they can and can't do, and the criminalization of care that could fall under the abortion umbrella has created a stressful situation for doctors who end up stuck between providing the best evidence-based care and risking jail time or losing their career.

Resneck provided testimony on behalf of the AMA to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations as part of a hearing entitled “Roe Reversal: The Impacts of Taking Away the Constitutional Right to an Abortion.” In his statement , he explained how abortion laws put both doctors and patients in a dangerous position.

“The recent Dobbs decision overturned nearly a half century of precedent, ending patients’ rights to comprehensive reproductive health care, allowing government intrusion into the medical exam room, and criminalizing medical care, " Dr. Resneck said in his statement. "And, now, physicians in many states are reporting chaos and confusion. Physicians have been placed in an impossible situation, trying to meet their ethical duties to place patients’ health and well-being first, while attempting to comply with vague, restrictive, complex, and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine and jeopardize the health of our patients. Physicians are worried about prosecution of their patients and themselves in the midst of significant legal uncertainty and this is dangerous for our patients."

Resneck shared that the Dobbs decision is already limiting people's access to medications that treat chronic disease and explained how it will "worsen existing gaps in health disparities and outcomes, compounding the harm that under-resourced communities already experience."

"States that end legal abortion will not end abortion, they will end safe abortion, risking devastating consequences, including patients’ lives, " he added.

Resneck wrote that the association has “only begun to assess the full impact of the Dobbs decision on our physicians and their patients," and that at this point there are "more questions than answers. " However, he reiterated the AMA's commitment to opposing the criminalization of medical practice and challenging criminal or civil penalites on patients or health professionals who find themselves legally at risk from reproductive healthcare.

If the associations of our nation's top medical professionals—not just at the AMA, but also those that specialize in pregnancy and birth, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , the American College of Nurse-Midwives , the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and more —oppose abortion legislation, we should listen to them. They're the ones who have dedicated their lives to pregnancy-related medical care. They're the ones who understand the medical implications of this ruling and the laws that it triggered. They're the ones who should have a say in patient care, not government officials with no expertise in medical research or practice.

The state governments that are banning abortion are egregiously overstepping. No one but a doctor and the person experiencing the pregnancy should have any say in their healthcare, period.

From Your Site Articles
Democracy

Appalachian mom's speech on Kentucky's proposed abortion ban is a must-hear for everyone

Danielle Kirk is speaking up for those often overlooked in our cultural debates.

Canva , courtesy of Danielle Kirk

Appalachian mom gives passionate speech.

Many people felt a gut punch when the Supreme Court issued its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision that protected a woman's right to an abortion. However, for some this was a call to action.

Danielle Kirk , 27, a mom of two and an activist on TikTok, used her voice in an attempt to educate the people that make decisions in her small town. Kirk lives in Kentucky where a trigger law came into effect immediately after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Being a former foster child, she knew she had to say something. Kirk spoke exclusively with Upworthy about why she decided to speak up.

Kirk hadn't planned to speak at the Pikeville rally , a protest against Kentucky's Human Life Protection Act, triggered in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. But when the organizers asked for speakers, she felt compelled to make her way to the podium. “I felt like what I had to say had not been said before, coming from someone that had been in the system, " Kirk explained. "There's so much of a gray area when it comes to this issue and they're trying to make it black and white. The law in Kentucky does not give way to people that I know."

She further explained that the wording of the act is so unclear that doctors she knows personally are afraid because there's no clear distinction on what is considered a great enough threat to the mother's life, which is the only exception given in the state's law.

@daniellekirk731

I didnt plan on speaking today, but something told me to. For so long our voices have been silenced into sumbission. No more. Its time for us to all band together, create the support systems we need HERE, turn our tears and anger into outreach. If they want to pass this back to the states, let your state representives & congressmen know that they work for us, if they cant, we’re coming for their jobs!!!! @appalachian_nana thanks for sending me this video

Kirk asked the question, "Do I have to be on my death bed to have an abortion?"

Appalachia is an expansive territory that spans 13 states , including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi. Of those 13 states, five have trigger laws and four others are either fighting in court to enact bans on abortion or plan to call a special session to enact a ban. In the state of Kentucky, where Kirk lives, the trigger law does not allow for any exceptions for rape or incest, even if the victim is a child.

Kirk has two small daughters and is a victim of childhood sexual abuse herself, which gives her a unique perspective on why this extreme ban is harmful. She was raised by her biological mother for only a short period of time before her mother's death, and she spent time in and out of the foster care system where she experienced sexual abuse. Being born and raised in rural Appalachia, first West Virginia, then Kentucky, Kirk understands what this ban would mean for the people in her small town and other towns like hers across the country.

At 15.2% of the population, Appalachia has some of the highest poverty rates in the country. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2020 national average poverty rate was 11.4%. Resources for people living in Appalachian areas are scarce due to the remote locations that most of the population lives in. Most rural areas don’t have public transportation or Uber to take them places. There are regions in Appalachia that don’t even have internet access. So being able to get appropriate medical care when pregnant can be a challenge for those living in the region.

Poverty doesn’t only stop at transportation, the area's residents are also challenged in terms of employment as well as access to grocery stores, clean water or even running water . It's a population that is struggling to survive on limited resources.

@daniellekirk731

I understand a lot of people have been warning of this, & they didn’t listen in the past. But young voters here are tired & ready to fight. #Kentucky #606 #OrganizeAppalachia

Which is why Kirk’s speech is what government officials need to hear. It’s also what people who are supporting the abortion ban need to hear. Because sometimes, speaking the truth of your personal experiences is the only way to change the minds of neighbors and politicians. And things can seem far removed when you don’t personally know someone affected by larger decisions.

During our interview, Kirk expressed hope that the trigger law could be halted. In fact, on June 30, a Louisville Circuit Court Judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the state's abortion ban. This means abortions can continue in the state, for now.

Kirk said she feels it's important for people to see someone that talks like her taking a stance against something that is supposed to be popular in a conservative state like Kentucky. "People have been silenced into submission, " she said. She hopes that others might be inspired to speak up and even become motivated to run for local or state office—something she is considering for when her children are a bit older.

From Your Site Articles
roe v. wade
Trending Stories