The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sets an infuriating tone for how the government treats reproductive rights in America. Our society focuses on quantity of life versus quality by forcing thousands of women to give birth and become “mothers,” failing to consider a plethora of circumstances that are often the reality for women who seek abortions.
Those who support the overturning of Roe v. Wade neglect to consider that the process of pregnancy and the decision to seek an abortion is deeply personal and unique for each woman. Although motherhood is a significant and beautiful aspect of life, it should never be forced, and one’s decision to bring a child into this world should be based on one’s choices, not dictated by the government. Not to mention, the United States has an astounding lack of resources for mothers and potential mothers in this country, which hinders the ability to provide a sustainable upbringing for children. Therefore, the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson was a mistake that resulted in the mass depreciation of life despite the increase in birth rates.
For context, the concept of abortion has been around as early as Ancient Egypt in 1550 BCE — methods paralleled modern pill-based abortions. Moreover, this is a legitimate medical practice that was not made up by feminists who justify the actions of irresponsible women, but rather a demonstration of how this non-politicized choice has been a common concept in women’s reproductive history that renders an equivalence of being essential to women’s reproductive rights today.
Not to mention, the process by which a woman conceives and is aware of the fetus in the first place is never the same, rendering any six-week, first-trimester and second-trimester framework implausible. When states like Texas impose an abortion ban beyond a six-week standard, it not only disregards biology and the reality of appointments, but it takes away the chance for women with irregular periods, cryptic pregnancies or cycles to decide.
However, the most infuriating reality of denying abortion access is the maternal mortality rate. Ironically, the pro-life movement claims to fight for children’s lives, though not when female children are facing serious threats to their own lives from pregnancy. Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death for girls and young women aged 15 to 19, and children aged 10 to 14 have a higher risk of health complications from death from pregnancy than adults, making abortion key to the health of young women of all ages around the world.
These “complications” — from placental abruptions, birth defects and infections — can cause severe internal bleeding of the mother and harm to the fetus itself, and they encompass the main medical reasons for receiving an abortion, creating different circumstances for pregnancies across the board. Consider Samantha Casiano, a Texas woman who was forced to carry a pregnancy with fatal fetal conditions and is now traumatized for the rest of her life. Casiano has said she now sees a psychiatrist constantly.
When a deprived mother is forced to carry a dead or critically conditioned child, it dangles the gift that is motherhood in people’s faces. That is not life. Why? Because bone marrow and flesh are not what life is.
Nevertheless, these abortion bans fail to consider the complex situations of women who decide to pursue an abortion. According to Dr. Briggs at the National Institute of Medicine, 40 percent cite financial reasons, 36 percent cite not being ready and 31 percent cite partner-related reasons. Additionally, about 32,101 pregnancies are a result of rape each year — taking away the right to abortion not only violates women’s bodily autonomy once, but twice. These statistics demonstrate that abortion doesn’t make a woman less responsible. It doesn’t make motherhood less valuable to her — it makes her considerate of the quality of life for her child that could result due to her circumstances.
For women in these situations, some may advocate for putting the child in foster care or up for adoption. However, the low quality of life for American foster children offers little comfort to mothers potentially considering the foster care system. Only 55.3 percent of kids in the foster care system graduated in 2020. 50 percent of youth who age out of foster care face homelessness with no income within the first four years and one in four children in foster care struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Even if the woman could raise the child herself, average day care costs in the United States have risen 9 percent in the last year while the average cost to provide center-based child care is $1,230 per month, or about $15,000 a year. Even supplies to provide for children are increasingly expensive — the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that between August 2023 and 2024, the price of baby food increased by 2.5 percent.
Lastly, no form of contraception or birth control is 100 percent effective. There’s little evidence that illustrates that women use abortion as birth control, according to the National Abortion Federation, and if women were receiving abortions as their birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three abortions in one year, adding up to over 30 over her fertile lifetime. Half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used the month they got pregnant.
Overall, the ways that bodily autonomy is being harmed in today’s world via abortion restrictions are illogical. Pro-life doesn’t care about life — they want to force hundreds of millions of lives, even when there is no life, to be born. They want to force women to go through an excruciating and uncomfortable pregnancy without a say in the matter. And, ultimately, they want to push women into the preconceived framework that is motherhood.
There’s a lack of understanding of what life is or should be. However, the true disconnect between the pro-life and pro-choice movements is not the life itself, but the quality.
Jenna Caron is a freshman double-majoring in Spanish and philosophy, politics and law.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.