Home | About | Donate

Anti-Choice States Are Worse for Women and Children, Says Study


Anti-Choice States Are Worse for Women and Children, Says Study

Julia Conley, staff writer

A new study challenges the conservative idea that abortion restrictions are put in place by legislators who simply want to protect women's health and safety.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health find (pdf) that states with the most restrictions to abortion access tend to have laws that put other healthcare services out of women's reach as well—and to have worse health outcomes for women and children.


Those states also happen to be “red (some blazingly so) states” that rake in millions/billions in federal subsidies at a higher rate than their counterpart blue states; have lower graduation rates (HS and/or university) with corresponding higher drop-out rates; a higher percentage of the populace facing homelessness, poverty, and children enduring food insecurity; devote less funds to infrastructure and public transit; and otherwise hang their residents out to dry…old, young, disabled combined.


Time for women to take over the Democratic Party or start their own revolution.


Hopefully women at risk that value their liberty and well being will either change this or leave those states. There are other places to live that actually value women as equal citizens.


As many of us have been saying for a long time, anti-choicers are only concerned about controlling the woman’s body. They don’t care about the baby after its born. They only act like they care about “killing the unborn baby” but their actions in other areas of maternity issues and women’s health betray them. Look at the whole picture and you can see the devil for what it is- controlling women.


Moving is not financially feasible for most women, especially single mothers with children. Working two jobs to make ends barely meet does not leave much time for civic protestations. A woman in Arkansas or anywhere in the South or Midwest cannot easily move to Washington State, Oregon, California, etc. for example nor could she find affordable housing unless choosing to relocate in rural areas (which can be a questionable move based on the pockets of ignorance in these areas). Provincialism and religious zealotry are common practices in states that are hell-bent on eliminating a woman’s right to choose and access affordable healthcare at Planned Parenthood clinics.


I know it is difficult but not impossible. I guess it could be possible to include relocation services as an alternative. Who knows where this is heading but criminalization isn’t to big of a stretch. There are a lot of babies born in prison. If you are faced with this situation you really need to know what your options are.


Poor women, especially. Just as in other aspects of health care, there are some who have the means to travel out of state or out of the country to get what they want who have a “I’m ok, screw you” attitude to other women.