My body, my choice. A woman’s right to choose. Planned Parenthood. Reproductive health. Family planning. Pro-choice. Safe, legal and rare. Bans off our bodies.
All of this is wordplay. All are marketing phrases. Every single one is cynical, illogical and useless in a serious conversation about abortion.
Why even have the conversation? Because Roe V. Wade and its natural result of abortion on demand is built on lies and talking points. Isn’t it past time for honesty about a “right” that isn’t, yet was created to enable sexual freedom without consequences?
In 1973, proponents assured us that abortion would be “safe, legal and rare.” Rare as in a million abortions per year, plus or minus a few hundred thousand? Rare as in 62,502,904 abortions since 1973? These numbers are not from a pro-life source; they’re from the Guttmacher Institute—and the CDC.
What about rape and incest victims?
According to a 2004 Guttmacher Institute study, the percentage of women who said they were seeking an abortion after being raped was one percent. Those seeking abortion as a result of incest was .05 percent. The study also found that these numbers haven’t changed appreciably between 1987-2004.
Why do most women get abortions? They don’t do it for their health. They do it for their freedom. When asked why they wanted an abortion by the Guttmacher Institute, the number one reason was that, “Having a baby would dramatically change my life.”
Why do women use Planned Parenthood? According to Planned Parenthood’s own 2019-2020 Annual Report, 96.9 percent of pregnant women use their services to get an abortion. 0.7 percent seek adoption referrals, and 2.4 percent go for prenatal care of any kind.
The sad truth is that most women who abort their pregnancies do so not for family planning, not for their reproductive health, and not to show the world that they are in control of their bodies and their choices.
Most women use abortion as safety valves for their sexual freedom.
Before Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court’s legal gymnastics and creation of the aforementioned nonexistent right out of thin air, American men and women had children because they would change their lives.
Children were built-in to the marriage arrangement. And if a couple decided not to have children, there was effective birth control. Pregnancies were prevented, so babies wouldn’t be aborted.
Prior to the sexual revolution, pregnancy and children were seen as normal and genuine family planning. Yet as in any revolution, norms were discarded, so that so-called freedoms could be enjoyed without consequences.
My body, my choice is a legitimate right. Legally and constitutionally, we choose with whom we have sexual relations. Rare instances of rape and incest aside, once we choose, we’re responsible for the consequences of our sexual choices.
Our control over our bodies does not include control over others’ bodies. Morally, we have no right to kill our unborn. Their bodies are their own.
If and when conception occurs, a new life begins, and another human being’s body becomes part of a new equation. He or she too has a right to life. Sadly, thanks to Roe v. Wade, this right has been stripped away to make room for sexual freedom.
Here’s the dilemma: Sexual freedom is incompatible with the sanctity of human life. As Americans, we are free to choose sexual activity with any other adult—how are we free to end life that’s born from our freedom?
AG Merrick Garland held a press conference to announce his Justice Department’s lawsuit against Texas and its heartbeat law. He said the law makes it too risky for abortion clinics to operate.
He said nothing about it helping to make life less risky for a virtually unprotected people group. Garland bases his lawsuit on the assertion that it violates a nonexistent constitutional “right.”
To explain, this phantom right to abort one’s pregnancy was created by the Supreme Court for their majority ruling on Roe v. Wade. The court based their decision on a contortion, alteration and expansion of the rights to privacy in the Constitution.
This creation of a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy in the name of privacy is actually a pivot point at which sexual freedom goes beyond choice to dehumanize human life.
In truth, Texas did what other states should do. They enacted commonsense legislation that provides unborn babies some level of protection. Their heartbeat law protects an unprotected people group against those who believe the lie that a fetus isn’t a person and that their freedom is more important than someone else’s life.
The Texas law also provides a check on an industry that values profit over people. The president and his party’s outrage against legislation that values life and seeks to protect it is proof positive of the efficacy of nearly fifty years of lies and talking points.
It’s high time we as a nation of rights and freedoms extend those rights and freedoms to those who, when unwanted, have neither.