‘Pro-Choice’ Is ‘Pro-Life’
“With Roe V. Wade being challenged by a majority conservative Supreme Court, women everywhere are in danger.” This is a line taken from a piece by Amelia Hapgood (“Being ‘Pro-Choice” as a Latter-Day Saint”) that we published earlier this year, in January. Exactly five months later, this danger has become a reality. On Friday, June 24, 2022, the majority conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), eliminating a person’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. There are so many reasons that this ruling is unjust; the fact that abortion is healthcare and people are entitled to bodily autonomy should be enough reason to make it so. In the context of the culture and religion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, however, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is also unjust because it has undermined values of both life and agency.
Without the protection of Roe v. Wade, the legality and access of abortion is left entirely up to the decision of individual states. In Utah, a Red and culturally conservative state, reactions to the Court’s ruling are mixed. The objection that does exist, however, is particularly strong because Utah is one of 16 states that has a trigger law that outlaw abortion almost entirely without Roe v. Wade. This past Saturday, a pro-choice rally against the Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade took place at Pioneer Park in Provo organized by the Provo branch of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). Over 400 people showed up to speak out against the unjust overturning and show their support for the right to choose an abortion.
As a religious state centered around the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is not surprising that abortion is so wholly restricted without constitutional protections, nor is it surprising that it is such a controversial issue. Despite the majority of Utah’s population being affiliated with the Church, many others are not (nor is most of the U.S.). A person’s right to choose an abortion should not be dictated by a religion by which they do not conform to or believe in. Many non-Christian (and some Christian) religions have differing beliefs that require abortion be accessible. And yet, even if this weren’t true, Utah’s ban of abortion and the Court’s ruling are in opposition to ideals of Christ-like love (as Amelia Hapgood wrote) and even the Church’s official stance.
The Church’s official statement on abortion in “Gospel Topics” includes exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest, threat to the pregnant person’s life, or in instances of severe fetal abnormalities. The exceptions to the ban on abortion in the Church’s statement seemingly match those that are part of Utah’s trigger law. The trigger law is deceptive, however, because they still make it extremely difficult for people in these exempted situations to be granted an abortion. In the case of rape or incest, access to an abortion requires a filed police report. This would force someone seeking an abortion due to rape or incest to come forward, accuse their abuser, and obtain a police report. All these steps are often extremely difficult, dangerous, and/or end in few results-- we have seen time and time again that people do not believe victims. According to a 2018 report by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police and only 12% of child sexual abuse is reported. Overall, rape is the most under-reported crime, and so the necessity of a police report to obtain an abortion is less than simple.
In cases of abortion due to threat to the pregnant person’s life or due to fetal abnormalities, one doctor’s approval is necessary for the former, and two doctors’ approval for the latter. Even in cases where the pregnant person’s life is at risk or the fetus has severe abnormalities, vague legal language forces doctors to take additional time to determine if an abortion is considered legal or not, which inevitably leads to delays in care and increases risk of death. Also, healthcare providers often do not believe women, which raises concerns as well. Research shows that women tend to be prescribed less pain medication, are forced to wait longer to receive treatment, and are more often told that their pain is psychosomatic. The consequences of this medical gaslighting are fatal, especially for lower income women of color.
The official stance of the Church also states that “elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and commandments of God.” Most people who seek an abortion do so almost always out of real need, not “personal or social convenience.” The exceptions in Utah’s trigger law do not constitute the only situations in which a person could have real need for an abortion-- financial strain, living situations, care for already living children, lack of time, mental health, etc. are all burdens that could cause a person to feel that they need an abortion. I think it is more than fair to say that most people who get abortions do not enjoy doing so or do so lightly. And that’s why, even if abortion is illegal, abortions will continue to occur-- because abortion is a necessary part of healthcare, not a tool for convenience.
A person should not have to prove that their pregnancy falls into any one of these circumstances (rape, incest, threat to life, etc.) to receive an abortion because a person should have the right to bodily autonomy. Additionally, if not driven by these factors, most people who seek an abortion do so for other reasons that are just as life-threatening (financial instability, violence, health concerns, etc.). It is clear that the barriers that women face in meeting the criteria of Utah’s trigger law make abortion almost completely inaccessible even in these circumstances. In fact, without the constitutional protection of Roe v. Wade, Utah’s trigger law actually ban abortion more completely than the Church does because of the significant barriers put into place that bar most access to exceptions. Not to mention the social and cultural shame that a person even in these situations will often face pushing them to not go through with an abortion.
Overall, the Church’s statement concludes that a person “should consider abortion only after receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.” While this provides a caveat for abortion exceptions as deemed admissible by the Church, the caveat is not that a person files a police report or gets a doctor’s approval. The caveat is prayer. Prayer that takes place between an individual and God-- not between an individual and Supreme Court justices, law makers, state or church leaders, doctors, or strangers with differing beliefs. Thus, the severe restrictions on abortion in Utah, while they include limited exceptions, clearly lack a more important exception: deference to individual, God-given agency.
In a state where the dominant culture claims to value the sanctity of life and family above all else, it would follow that the laws and programs of that state reflect those values. Illegalizing or restricting abortion does not decrease the number of abortions that take place-- only safe ones. If abortion is viewed as an attack on life, then outlawing abortion only makes this attack more severe because of the lives of pregnant people it will cost. According to the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die every year due to unsafe abortions. A report from Duke University (2019) estimates that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase of deaths among Black women. Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, abortion will be severely restricted or banned in 26 states. The people who will suffer the most from these restrictions will be working class, Black and Brown women, who generally are more disadvantaged in terms of access to effective contraception, quality healthcare, and geographic and financial access.
Pro-choice is pro-life. If we are to truly lower the number of abortions and preserve life, the solution is not to ban abortion. The solution is to empower individuals with agency through more comprehensive sex education, access to contraception and family planning resources, universal healthcare, paid family leave, financial support for lower income families, secure housing, free childcare, education, career, and wage equity for women, etc. If it were really about preserving life, these solutions would take priority over a ban on abortion, a healthcare right that when denied, only destroys more lives, and seeks to control women and other marginalized groups. If we truly value love, life, and agency, we must act towards making these solutions our goal and we must demand Roe v. Wade back.
Excerpt: The solution is to empower individuals with agency through more comprehensive sex education, access to contraception and family planning resources, universal healthcare, paid family leave, financial support for lower income families, secure housing, free childcare, education, career, and wage equity for women, etc. If it were really about preserving life, these solutions would take priority over a ban on abortion, a healthcare right that when denied, only destroys more lives, and seeks to control women and other marginalized groups. If we truly value love, life, and agency, we must act towards making these solutions our goal and we must demand Roe v. Wade back.