Sunday marked the 39th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which rendered abortion services throughout the country legal.
And safe.
Prior to the landmark ruling, the health of unintentionally pregnant women was significantly at risk. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit organization that works to advance sexual and reproductive health, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for nearly 2,700 women in 1930. And in 1965 — more than thirty years later — deaths due to illegal abortion procedures represented 17 percent of those related to pregnancy and childbirth.
The startling fact is that these figures are only those reported. The “back-alley abortion” survival rates are presumably worse.
A more recent study, jointly conducted by Guttmacher and the World Health Organization (WHO), found that the number of unsafe, back-alley abortions is rising globally, especially in countries where abortion is illegal. Nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, according to the study, published Jan. 19.
The study indicates that abortion rates are highest where the procedure is illegal, which suggests that precedents like Roe v. Wade have contributed to the decline and leveling of abortion rates in developed countries.
Legal abortion means less abortion, in other words.
Yet, as Americans United for Life earlier this month released its seventh annual “Life List,” which ranks states by their treatment of abortion, euthanasia and other life issues, anti-abortion advocates claim they’ve created the legal architecture to reverse Roe v. Wade.
“States are preparing for the day after Roe. And as the Life List documents, we’re seeing tremendous gains in defending life in law,” said AUL CEO and President Charmaine Yoest.
“Gains?” “Life in law?” This is precisely the problem with “lifers.” Ironically, I can conceive two words to describe Yoest’s rhetoric: embryonic and abortive.
Lifers — those favoring the criminalization of abortion practices — are quick to assert that abortion is evil.
It is, assuredly.
But the relentless pursuit of saintliness prevents them from acknowledging it’s a necessary evil. Quite simply, as long as there are unwanted and unintended pregnancies, there will be abortions. It is, therefore, morally expedient to ensure that abortion practices are safe and regulated.
Often ignored by the pro-life movement is the fact that unsafe abortions result in myriad anti-life outcomes — death and infertility, most notably.
That’s not very pro-life.
Similarly hypocritical is the pro-life movement’s anti-contraception position. If lifers really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they’d advocate birth control and work to ensure that contraceptive measures are widely available and cheaply provided as preventative care.
As it stands, lifers are paradoxically providing for abortion rates to increase.
As we enter the 40th year of Roe, the Guttmacher/WHO study serves as an important reminder that the morally complex issue of abortion isn’t entirely a moral one. With challenges to Roe v. Wade abounding in 2011 — several states, including Louisiana, introduced legislation that would have overruled the decision outright — there’s a renewed sense of urgency to protect women’s access to abortion services.
The matter isn’t simply one of choice — most pregnancies don’t arise out of choice. Rather, the issue is the medical welfare of American women and the government’s obligation to uphold their access to reliable healthcare. Certainly, in this godless day and age, it’s not only permissible but commendable to cling to our morals and values, to make “gains” in our defense of life.
But what lifers are proposing are losses — the loss of safety, the loss of rights and, ultimately, the loss of life.
Phil Sweeney is a 25-year-old English senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_PhilSweeney.
 
 
—-
Contact Phil Sweeney at [email protected]