"Pro-Life"? Nope. Just Pro-Birth

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Well this is an infuriating blog post from the often infuriating National Review:

Countless media pundits question the efficacy of the pro-life movement. … Some maintain that overturning Roe v. Wade would not result in fewer abortions. The spin they give is that if abortion policy returned to the states, women seeking abortions would simply travel to blue states where abortion would likely remain legal.

However, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that women seeking abortions are sensitive to the travel costs and that state bans on abortion would be effective in reducing abortions.

In other words, “pro-lifers” are excited by evidence that state restrictions on abortion  – or outright bans if Roe v. Wade were overturned – force poor women to give birth. Rich women (National Review readers?) are fine – they can just buy a ticket to California or New York or Europe or someplace and make a long weekend of it. No biggie.

But poor women couldn’t afford to travel to places where abortion was legal, so they’d have no choice but to have a child. No money = no choice. Mandatory motherhood.

And don’t forget that all the while, “pro-life” lawmakers are slashing funding for family planning, making it even harder for poor women to avoid pregnancy in the first place. 

Luckily, aspirin between the knees is super cheap, according to conservatives.

Here’s my question for “pro-lifers”: If women can’t afford an abortion, how on Earth will they afford to adequately care for a child? Have you looked into the cost of diapers these days? Day care? Food? Education?

The right wing can crow all day about how much they respect life, but forcing women to give birth to children they don’t want and can’t afford while voting to slash the social safety net doesn’t sound “pro-life” to me. Pro-birth, maybe. There’s a BIG difference.

Better Get Out Your Aspirin, Gals

The House released a health spending plan yesterday that arguably might be the least healthy for women ever!  Way to go, boys! (Sarcastic clap.)

Funny, they forgot to mention "for contraception."

Here’s a rundown (If I can quit rolling my eyes long enough to type):

• Eliminates Title X. The bill would scrap Title X. Title X is that radical family planning program begun by that most radical of presidents – Republican Richard Nixon. It provides contraception and preventive health services to mostly low-income Americans through community-based clinics. The horror! In all seriousness, every dollar invested in Title X saves almost $4 in government spending (mostly Medicaid) the next year, so if you’re looking to save money, scrapping Title X is a really moronic way to do it.
• Attacks Planned Parenthood. AGAIN. The bill would disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding whatsoever. So all you women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cervical cancer screenings? Well, there’s always other Title X clinics. OH, WAIT.
• No Funds to Implement “Obamacare.” Are you looking forward to no-cost reproductive health services under the Affordable Care Act? Me too! Well, that won’t happen in the House gets its way. NO PILLS FOR YOU!
• But Boy, Do They Love Their Abstinence Education! The bill would cut funding for comprehensive sex ed – you know, the kind that actually works – and shift the money to “abstinence-only” programs. In other words, just hold aspirin between your knees, gals.
• Puts Your Boss Between You and Your Doctor. Gross, right? The bill also would allow ANY health plan or employer to refuse ANY coverage for ANY reason. In other words, if you work at Bob’s Delicatessen, and Bob opposes birth control (or mammograms, or Pap tests), you’d better stock up on aspirin.

Speaking of aspirin, could you hand me the bottle? I feel a headache coming on.