The fight over reproductive rights and abortion is deeply personal to those in the trenches, yet Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) tries below to make a pragmatic — in addition to a personal — argument in favor of reproductive rights.
Treading with some caution though the emotional minefield of the abortion issue, Whitehouse presents an economic argument for abortion rights, delivering statistics that demonstrate how access to abortion is a fiscally responsible choice — individually and for the economy at large. (Note: Pertinently, abortion opponents in Congress tend also to identify as fiscal conservatives.)
Whitehouse acknowledges that “deeply personal and harrowing” reasons commonly attend the decision to pursue an abortion, which, he says, one in four women under 45 have done. The 25% statistic is powerful enough that Whitehouse repeats it: “one in four.”
ICYMI: The right to reproductive freedom is also an economic issue: “Women denied an abortion, who had to carry a pregnancy to term, were four times more likely to live in poverty.” – @SenWhitehouse
#NoRightsToSpeakOf pic.twitter.com/L1YxUI5zxX
— Senate Budget Committee (@SenateBudget) April 2, 2024
Whitehouse asserts that the freedom to pursue an abortion affects a “woman’s life trajectory and her family’s financial security.” Whitehouse presents the data, saying a woman denied an abortion is four times as likely to “live in poverty.”
Conversely, access to abortion and contraception, Whitehouse says, “increase women’s earnings” and the chances that they “attend college.” Freedom, the Senator says, “turns out to have economic value.”
Whitehouse says data clearly show that the more extreme a state’s reproductive restrictions, the “more its economy suffers” and cites a study claiming that the national economy suffers a $173 billion yearly loss due to abortion restrictions.
Whitehouse is, of course, aware that no amount of economic pragmatism is likely to sway hardened opinions on the issue. Those who believe that life begins at conception — including 124 Republican lawmakers who signed the Life at Conception Act — remain unconvinced that the right of a woman to make decisions based on her own physical safety, psychological well-being, and ability to provide for a child are as important as a fertilized egg’s potential future.
For pro-life advocates, a fertilized egg’s rights, such as they are, supersede the rights of women to end a pregnancy. There is, for those holding this position, no middle ground or room to negotiate, an intransigence best illustrated by the fact that many make no exception even for victims of rape — that is, those who would force rape victims to bear the child of their rapist, based on a belief that the pregnancy is part of “God’s plan.”
Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, believe a woman’s freedom to choose is paramount — for any or all of the psychological, physical, economic and other reasons Whitehouse delineates. Those holding this belief represent the majority of Americans, according to polls and the voting results even in conservative states.