Anti-abortion activists neglect to advocate for measures that support parents and children
Abortion rights advocates have long argued anti-abortion activists and legislators are simply pro-birth, not pro-life. With the overturning of Roe v. Wade this past summer, trigger laws have gone into effect in many states that enact total or near total bans on all abortions. Anti-abortion advocates argue they are in favor of protecting life at all stages of development. Still the irony is glaring when evaluating maternal and infant mortality rates across the country. A majority of the states that have passed near total bans on abortion have had the worst birth outcomes for years due to limited maternal health services and supports for children and parents. The majority of these deaths happen needlessly; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 2 out of 3 maternal deaths are preventable. Alarmingly, birth outcomes are predicted to worsen in abortion restricted states due to lack of access to maternity care. If anti-abortion advocates claim to be pro-life and acting in the best interest of the pregnant person and the fetus, they should dually advocate for policies that maximize healthy pregnancies and births and support parents and children after birth through early childhood.
Birth outcomes and abortion laws
The poor birth outcomes in certain states are no secret, but instead of focusing on improving the health outcomes of infants and pregnant people, anti-choice lawmakers have spent the last 50 years fighting to restrict access to reproductive health care for their constituents. Tactics to complicate obtaining an abortion include mandatory waiting periods for people seeking abortions, admitting privileges for the doctor performing abortions at a local hospital, and requiring ultrasounds before an abortion procedure. These regulations of abortion providers are not for the health and safety of the pregnant person; very few abortion patients experience complications and require a hospital visit after the procedure. Additionally, waiting periods impose onerous time and financial burdens, especially considering that over a third of patients travel 25 or more miles to get abortion care. These targeted measures are intended to close clinics and restrict how many physicians are legally permitted to provide abortion care.
Unsurprisingly, since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, “pro-life” lawmakers have not spent time creating and advancing policies that will make it easier for people to carry their pregnancies to term. Instead, anti-abortion advocates have focused on invading the privacy of pregnant people and criminalizing healthcare. For example, soon after the decision, Texas passed an “abortion bounty law” which rewards citizens $10,000 if they turn over someone who aids or abets an abortion. Idaho passed a law in April 2023 that restricts the movements of minors seeking an abortion out of state; helping a minor obtain an abortion carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. Outside of invading privacy and restricting autonomy, advocates are seeking to outlaw the drug Mifepristone used for medication abortions. Overwhelmingly safe, the drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over 20 years ago, and has been used globally since 1987. These efforts are rooted in controlling women, not protecting them.
Meanwhile, the United States has maintained the highest rates of negative birth outcomes among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) high-income countries for the past decade, despite spending the most money on health care. These high death rates are not new; many of these states have long had birth outcomes consistent with low-income countries and have maternal and infant mortality rates double and triple those of states with less draconian reproductive health laws. Mississippi, the state well-known for bringing the Dobbs case against its last remaining abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health, has the country’s highest infant mortality rate. Infants in Mississippi are more than twice as likely to die than those born in California. The United States is also the only country among 41 peer countries that does not provide or mandate paid parental leave.
Call to action
With half of U.S. abortion patients earning incomes below the federal poverty level, it is essential we enhance and expand social programs to support people who are now being forced to give birth due to the Dobbs decision. In abortion-restricted states, nearly 40 percent of counties are considered “maternity care deserts,” which is a county that operates without a hospital or birth center that offers obstetric care. Despite the staggering statistics surrounding care for infants and mothers, lawmakers refuse to enact policies that are shown to improve birth outcomes and support families. States that expand Medicaid bring much-needed prenatal and postpartum care and improve health care coverage for low-income infants and children. As part of the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion provides an option to states to extend the program to cover beneficiaries based on income alone (up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level). Without expansion, eligibility rules vary by state, but generally, eligibility is linked to income, household size, disability, and other factors. Of the 11 states that have not expanded Medicaid, three rank in the top 10 for infant mortality, and half are in the top 10 for maternal mortality.Additionally, while some states and local governments have passed laws to expand childcare subsidies and paid leave to working parents, the vast majority of states have no form of paid family leave or childcare cost assistance. In 2021, the Biden administration introduced the Build Back Better bill, which included provisions such as ensuring families will spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare, and paid family and medical leave for eligible workers. While the bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives (without a single Republican vote), it ultimately was not able to garner enough votes in the Senate without Republican support. The bill morphed into the Inflation Reduction Act, which is devoid of many of the groundbreaking equity provisions the original legislative framework contained, including subsidized childcare and paid family leave.
Now is the time to highlight hypocrisy
With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, legislators, advocates, and the media are finally focused on the lack of support that exists for pregnant people and families in the United States. With the short attention span of the public and rapid news cycle, a short window of time exists to call attention to the reality that exists for people of reproductive age and families in anti-abortion states. Anti-choice legislators have had decades to strengthen and enact programs that support pregnant people and their children. Instead, these same legislators have not only failed to create and advance such programs but have actively voted against them when given the chance. The hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is glaring and demonstrates these lawmakers and activists are pro-birth and anti-abortion, but not pro-life. If “pro-life” lawmakers want to live up to their espoused values, they need to put their money where their mouth is and vote for policies that protect families, such as expanded healthcare access, paid parental leave, and subsidized childcare. If anti-abortion advocates and legislators continue to work against measures supporting life after birth, they should know that ideological inconsistency will continue to be highlighted.
About the Author
Rachel Bogdan is a second-year Master of Public Policy evening student at Georgetown. She currently works at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, where her research focuses on healthcare expansion for low-income Americans. Prior to working at and attending Georgetown, Rachel obtained her BA in political science at the Catholic University of America and worked in international economics.