Over the past weeks, the supreme court began hearing June Medical Services v. Russo, a case which considers whether a 2014 Louisiana law can constitutionally require abortion clinics to obtain nearby hospital admittance privilege. While the bill, known as the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, was originally brought forward by Democratic state senator Katrina Jackson as what she considered a “common sense” healthcare proposal, members of her party across the country expressed strong hostile reactions regarding the hearing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in particular caused a stir when he went so far as to warn Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they will “pay the price” should they dare to vote in favor of the bill. Since Supreme Court judges cannot be voted out of office, Schumer’s passionate invective has been widely interpreted as a physical threat.
Outrageous incidents like this raise the troubling question, why is there so much tension in the Democratic Party surrounding the pro-life movement? How could any representative of an institution which claims dedication to serving the poor be so fervent in animosity toward any potential threat to Roe v Wade, a decision that perpetuates the vicious cycle of women in poverty and legal abortion as long as it stands?
Statistics collected by the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) show that legalized abortion tends to worsen pre-existing conditions of poverty. This effect has been linked to the creation single-parent households, over 80 percent of which are led by women, and found to be rooted in the growing feminization of poverty. As far back as the 1990s, sociological studies have found that since abortion and contraception became readily available, “easy” options to deal with out of wedlock pregnancy, the perception of pregnancy has altered, coming to be seen as solely the woman’s responsibility. The expectation of the man, rather than to share the role of provider for the unborn child by becoming her husband, became limited to an offer of paying for abortion. If the woman refuses, she may be left on her own to care for the baby, often driving mother and child into poverty without a second income. However, if she accepts, abortion’s destruction of trust and intimacy leave her likelihood of ending up alone almost as high, as the rate of relationship breakups after an abortion is said to be between 40 and 75 percent. With almost 31% of households headed by a single woman below the poverty line, and almost half of children living with only their mother are considered poor.
Given this strong correlation between legalized abortion and the deepening of poverty levels for women and children, it is only logical to conclude that acting to end abortion is simultaneously a step towards improving the economic situation of these needy groups. It is high time for our legislators to recognize that there is no conflict of interest when it comes to passing pro-life bills and combating poverty; by the nature of this relationship, defending the poor and defending life go hand in hand. In this area, politicians like Democrat Senator Katrina Jackson shine a light of hope. America needs more such representatives who see that pro-life is a source of unity, for it encompasses the same call to care for society’s most vulnerable that all government bodies, regardless of factional disputes, ultimately strive to fulfill.
About The Contributor
