If it’s another day in Congress, odds are good there is probably another hearing regarding whether pregnant people should be forced to give birth — especially when they may not have enough money to be able to afford an abortion. This week’s push? HR 7, the so-called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion” bill that the House insists on voting on regardless of the fact that even if it managed to pass the Senate, President Obama will very likely veto it.
There are a number of reasons to oppose the bill, ranging from its codifying of the Hyde Amendment, which currently needs to be reauthorized year after year, to the massive expansion of so-called “conscience clauses” that will let medical providers not just refuse care associated with abortion but allow them not to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception and birth control, too. Then there’s the fact that the only way a “rape exception” allowing an abortion for a victim of sexual assault could be enforced would be to investigate sexual assault victims.
Still, none of that is stopping anti-choice House members from extolling the virtues not just of the bill, but of blocking access to abortion all together. After all, making women give birth is good for everyone!
Sadly, it’s not just Congress who believes this. Here are the top 5 reasons anti-choice activists believe women should be forced to give birth.
1) “It creates jobs!“ - That lovely and compassionate piece of economic news came from the Congressional hearing on HR 7, from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who testified in favor of the bill. “I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.”
On the one hand, it’s nice for Rep. Goodlatte to at least acknowledge how ridiculously expensive a child is, and the “goods and services” that will need to be purchased to care and maintain that child. Unfortunately he doesn’t see the flip side: the loss of earnings of parents, both at the time of pregnancy and in the long term, especially should either need to leave a job to care for the child.
2. “It will make the Social Security fund solvent!” – That gem came from former Republican Senator Rick Santorum during his presidential run. During a radio interview the far right social conservative declared: “The Social Security system, in my opinion, is a flawed design, period. But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends.” He then explained by saying, “[W]e don’t have enough workers to support the retirees,” because “a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion,” according to Raw Story.
3. “It will fill our army!” – Nothing says “pro-life” like demanding women give birth so we have more people to go to war with. Yet that is exactly what former Democratic Senator Zell Miller argued in 2007 at a fundraiser for an anti-choice group. “How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed. Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” he said, via Crooks and Liars.
4. “It‘s good for the environment!” – You’ve heard about the “intersexed fish,” right? Yes, I’m sorry, ladies, but you are just going to have to give up your birth control pills. That “tainted lady pee“ is damaging wildlife, and groups like American Life League thinks that’s the perfect reason to block your access to them. “Think about the water you drink. Think about the fish you eat. Could your own drinking water be infested with high levels of estrogen? Studies have shown that the male fish swimming in estrogen-rich waters are becoming feminized. What kind of effects would take place if we drink water containing high levels of estrogen and eat these contaminated fish?”
5. “It‘s good for preventing cancer!” – Despite the American Cancer Society’s insistence that it is not true, anti-choice activists continue to insist abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. A new study is making the claim again, once more declaring that abortion ups the likelihood of getting cancer because of the changes in breast tissue caused by pregnancy hormones and the ending of that change after an abortion (induced or natural).
Then there is the further “research” done by the Abortion Causes Breast Cancer brigade, which wants people to know that putting off pregnancy until later in life, or all together, also raises the risk for developing cancer according to them. “The longer a woman waits to have her first full term pregnancy (FFTP, used hereafter), the higher her risk of breast cancer as her immature, cancer-vulnerable breast tissue is exposed to carcinogens for a longer duration. A woman who has her FFTP at 20 years of age has a 90% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who remains childless or waits until she is 30 for her FFTP,” writes one advocate. “For each pregnancy she has subsequent to her first, her risk of breast cancer will decrease another 10%.”
In other words, to avoid cancer, everyone should have their first baby by age 20, and then continue to give birth as much as possible to continue decreasing her risk.
So, stimulate the economy, provide for social security, make more soldiers, save the wildlife AND prevent cancer? No wonder everyone insists a woman’s job is to have babies and have them often, regardless of the circumstances, and why they are making it so hard for a person to find any other options.
Get to work, ladies. You aren’t getting any younger.
Photo credit: Thinkstock