Let’s talk about abortion.
I know. Just saying the word is like pulling the pin on a grenade in the middle of a crowded room. It’s become one of those topics where the lines are drawn so deep, and the anger runs so hot, that an honest conversation feels almost impossible.
But I have to try. Because the slogans we shout, the simple answers we cling to, they have real, tangible, and often devastating consequences in the lives of actual human beings. And if we’re serious about building a better world, we have to have the courage to look at those consequences with clear eyes.
This isn’t about changing anyone’s core beliefs about when life begins. This is about acknowledging the facts of what happens when we turn those beliefs into law.
The Landscape: From Roe to Now
For nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade established a baseline constitutional right to an abortion. That didn’t mean everyone agreed with it, but it created a national standard. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, it didn’t end abortion; it threw the decision back to individual states.
The result? A chaotic patchwork of laws. Some states protect abortion rights. Others have enacted near-total bans, often with no exceptions for rape or incest. We now live in a country where a person’s fundamental reproductive freedom depends entirely on their zip code.
The Consequences: What the Data Shows
This isn’t theoretical. We have real data on what happens when abortion access is restricted. Let me be clear: the following statistics are drawn from reputable, non-partisan sources like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Guttmacher Institute, and peer-reviewed studies like the landmark “Turnaway Study” from the University of California, San Francisco.
- Maternal Health Suffers: States with more restrictive abortion laws consistently have higher rates of maternal mortality and morbidity. Forcing a person to carry an unwanted or medically risky pregnancy to term demonstrably increases their risk of death or serious health complications. This disproportionately affects low-income women and women of color, who already face systemic barriers to healthcare. $$Source: CDC National Center for Health Statistics$$. $$Image showing map comparing abortion restrictions and maternal mortality rates$$
- Economic Hardship Increases: The “Turnaway Study,” which followed women who sought abortions but were denied them, found profound and lasting negative economic consequences. Women denied abortions were significantly more likely to experience poverty, to be unemployed, to rely on public assistance, and to have trouble affording basic necessities like food and housing compared to women who received abortions. This hardship doesn’t just affect the woman; it affects her existing children and the child born from the unwanted pregnancy.
- Existing Children Suffer: The same study found that the existing children of women denied abortions were more likely to live below the poverty line and experience poorer developmental outcomes compared to the existing children of women who received abortions. Denying a parent the ability to control their family size has direct, negative consequences for the children they are already struggling to raise.
- Crime Rates (A Difficult Correlation): There is a controversial but statistically significant body of research (most famously by economists Donohue and Levitt) suggesting a correlation between the legalization of abortion via Roe v. Wade and the dramatic drop in crime rates roughly two decades later. The hypothesis is that unwanted children are statistically more likely to grow up in adverse conditions that increase their risk of criminal behavior later in life. While correlation is not causation, it is a piece of data we cannot honestly ignore when discussing the long-term societal impacts.
Deconstructing the Arguments: The “Dirty Mirrors”
Now, let’s hold a couple of the common arguments up to the light.
- The “What If” Fallacy: We often hear the argument, “What if the child aborted was the one who would cure cancer?” It’s an emotionally powerful question. But it’s also a profound piece of selective reasoning. If our concern is for potential lives lost, why isn’t there an equal or greater level of national outrage and action dedicated to protecting the actual lives being lost every single day? That child sitting in a classroom today, the one who might cure cancer, could just as easily be killed in a school shooting facilitated by lax gun laws. That pregnant woman carrying a wanted child could die in childbirth because she lives in a state with inadequate maternal healthcare. Where is the consistency in our concern for life?
- The Religious Argument: Many base their opposition on religious texts. But we must be honest. The Bible itself contains no explicit prohibition against abortion. Interpretations vary widely, and for centuries, different branches of Christianity held different views on when life begins. To take one specific, modern interpretation and demand that it become the law for everyone is a profound act of imposing one dogma on a diverse nation. Is that truly the role of government in a free society?
Conclusion: A Call for Empathy Grounded in Reality
This is not about being “pro-abortion.” It’s about being pro-reality. It’s about acknowledging that restricting abortion access does not end abortion (it often just makes it unsafe), and it demonstrably leads to worse outcomes for women, for children, and for society as a whole.
If we truly want to reduce the number of abortions, the most effective path is not through bans, but through policies that actually support life: comprehensive sex education, affordable contraception, robust support systems for pregnant people and new parents, and economic policies that give families a real shot at thriving.
If you truly want empathy, you must first give it. That means having the courage to look past the slogans and confront the real, human cost of the policies you advocate for. The facts are here. They do not care about our feelings, but our response to those facts is the ultimate test of our own humanity.