Let pro-life feminists have their place in the movement

In the current political climate, women’s health issues need all the defense they can get — and feuding between pro-choice and pro-life feminists can only hurt the cause.

The Women’s March on Washington made history Jan. 21, when over 5 million women from around the world came out to protect women’s rights and march in solidarity with every vulnerable community threatened by our current president.

But while the march was successful in making women’s voices heard and showcasing the resistance that is about to ensue, it also exposed a deep divide between pro-life feminists and pro-choice feminists on the issue of reproductive rights.

The controversy began when many pro-life organizations such as New Wave Feminists requested to be partners for the march about a week before it was held. Various women’s groups across the country complained about pro-life organizations being included once they saw these groups as partners, and the organizers reiterated the Women’s March’s specifically pro-choice platform. Because of this, several pro-life organizations were dropped from the march’s partnerships.

Although every woman was welcome to join the march, some pro-life women felt ostracized and excluded from the event’s purpose. The march failed to provide an inclusive space for both sides of the abortion debate. And in doing so, it missed the opportunity to unify women on the issue of reproductive rights and capitalize on the similarities we share in supporting all mothers.

The contentious debate surrounding abortion has always focused on the procedure’s legality and access, but we must work toward a common goal — to help all mothers prosper by having the resources to provide for their children.

Whether it’s legal or not, abortion is always going to exist. If we want to preserve life, we should focus on eliminating the need for abortion through policies such as paid family leave, universal childcare, access to contraception and family planning services.

According to the Center for Disease Control, abortion rates are at a historic low since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, falling from 16.3 percent to 14.6 percent in 2014. Additionally, the rate of unintended pregnancies has declined across all income groups, and teen pregnancy rates have hit record lows.

While Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards attributes these successes to better access to contraception, pro-life organizations such as Americans United for Life point to restrictive abortion laws in various states. One controversial measure that was introduced in December and eventually vetoed in Ohio by Gov. John Kasich, R-Oh., banned the procedure starting as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

It might be unclear at first whether the decrease in abortions is attributable to people being denied family planning services, or if people are able to plan better for having children and thus having less unintended pregnancies. But either way, it’s important to look at the demographics of those receiving abortions to fully understand the report.

In 2014, three-fourths of abortion patients were low-income, with 49 percent living at less than the federal poverty level. Low-income women are also less likely to have health insurance, which is why Medicaid is the second-most-common method of payment for patients.

If low-income women are disproportionately getting abortions because of a lack of means and financial support required to raise children, then we should be looking for ways to help support them.

Policies that aim to help working mothers are still minimal in the Unites States. With nearly a quarter of employed mothers across the country returning to work within two weeks of giving birth, it’s clear that financial security is essential to allowing women to care for their child in their earliest months.

Yet Congress continues to shut down proposals for paid family leave and universal childcare. And the United States remains the only industrialized country that doesn’t ensure paid family leave for all families.

If every family was guaranteed affordable childcare, no woman would have to make the difficult choice between staying at home to take care of the children or working full-time to pay for childcare costs.

But childcare costs have grown to become an untenable expense for most families, especially low-income mothers. In Pennsylvania, the average cost of childcare is $10,640 per year. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum-wage worker in Pennsylvania would need to work full time for 37 weeks, or from January to September, just to pay for childcare for one infant. When faced with such high childcare costs, many low-income mothers are forced to make that decision.

Another key element to preventing abortions and protecting women from unintended pregnancies is widespread access to contraception. Despite full legalization over 50 years ago in the Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut, there are still barriers for women that limit access to contraceptives, including affordability.

This part of the problem was partially addressed with the passing of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, which ensured that most health care plans would include free FDA-approved contraception without a co-payment. But as of 2015, 11 percent of women remained uninsured and without access — a low number, but not low enough. And the Trump administration’s plans to scrap the law don’t bode well for any improvements to contraception access.

The threats to women’s health in the near future don’t just stop at an end to contraception access. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wi., has promised to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding as part of his party’s health care agenda.

If they lose such a major provider of contraceptives, a majority of low-income women will be left with limited options to acquire them elsewhere. These women deserve the freedom to plan their families and receive basic health services, and feminists on both ends of the abortion debate should be fighting for these policies together.

Given the chance, Trump’s administration will undoubtedly take advantage of a divided feminist movement and stifle what it has built. If we can look past our differences, we can finally start looking for ways to move forward on the issue and the advancement of women. I may be pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean progress has to stop there.

Set aside your politics — we can’t afford to lose the progress we’ve made on behalf of all women.

Kirsten is a Senior Columnist for The Pitt News. She primarily writes on social justice issues and education.
Write to her at kew101@pitt.edu.