Roughly Half of the Population has one...

So why is there so much State and Federal litigation around the uterus and the individual's right to do with it what they deem best for themselves?

I currently live and work in Washington State, which continues to protect women's health. However, as we have seen over the past few years, these protections are no longer guaranteed, and there is a growing threat to our human rights from various directions. As I prepare to graduate in a couple of weeks and become a mental health therapist, I closely monitor the political climate and policies that will impact my future clients and the care I can provide them.

Why is there a push for more control over people's bodies and rights, and how does this benefit our government? Various theories exist, ranging from religious values to financial motivations. The primary concern is monetary gain for those who are wealthy. How do affluent individuals profit from people with uteruses being unable to make decisions about carrying a pregnancy to term or terminating it? When more people enter the workforce, the wealthy can maintain their status at the top.

The control over reproductive rights disproportionately affects low-income individuals, ethnic and minority communities, and LGBTQIA+ people, as these groups often lack the luxury and resources to access the proper healthcare they need. As States started to enact laws in 2022 targeting these groups, it is reminiscent of a return to the discrimination of the Jim Crow era, when the government mandated and financially supported the unequal treatment of racial/ethnic minority individuals, women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals (Yearby, 2024). By 1910, all states had made abortions illegal, except in some cases where the life of the pregnant person was at risk. The choice to make these exceptions was mainly in the hands of doctors, mostly men at that time. These laws against abortion were pushed by male lawmakers, often White, who wanted to encourage upper-class White women to have more children, partly due to rising immigration rates. By 1930, nearly one in five deaths related to childbirth were linked to unsafe, illegal abortions.

The State of California is setting aside several million dollars to help cover travel expenses for people seeking safe abortions in their state. However, single parents who do not have affordable healthcare or stable jobs may find it challenging to take advantage of such a commendable offer.

There has been talk of the U.S. creating a financial incentive for people to have more babies. The highly educated and financially well-off adults in today's societies are choosing to have fewer, if any, children at all. These individuals will most likely not change their minds about the number of children they choose, as $5000 is not a substantial amount to cover the cost of having and raising children. However, less advantaged people may see this as an answer to their immediate financial issues, taking further advantage of those by removing the government's support for getting and keeping people out of poverty (Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, childcare assistance, Head Start...). Maybe by now, you are seeing the slippery slope of creating laws that "protect" unborn fetuses has on perpetuating what Jim Crow laws had set out to do?

Let's go a little deeper into the ramifications of the overturn of Roe v. Wade for those with uteruses.

Abortion rates and statistics in the U.S.

In the U.S., nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and 18% of pregnancies result in induced abortions. People of all reproductive ages and diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds seek abortions. Notably, 60% of those seeking an abortion already have children, and 58% have never had an abortion before. Women who seek abortions often come from low-income backgrounds, are unmarried, and belong to racially or ethnically minoritized communities. Specifically, Black women obtain abortions at three times the rate of white women.

The most common reasons for seeking an abortion include 1) the inability to financially support a child, 2) feeling unprepared to have a child or another child, and 3) being in an abusive or unsupportive relationship. Additionally, three-quarters of women report three or more reasons for seeking abortion care. This highlights the complexity of their decision-making and the desire to make the best choice for themselves and their families.

A significant number of people seeking abortions are in their midlife years, rather than being predominantly teenagers or young adults. In 2020, there were 22,407 reported abortions among individuals aged 40 and older. This trend often arises because women in this age group may stop using contraceptives, mistakenly believing they are no longer capable of becoming pregnant. However, fertility can be erratic for many years before it completely stops ovulating.

It's important to note that individuals over the age of 35, sometimes referred to as "geriatric" pregnant individuals, are at a higher risk for pregnancy complications and mortality. These risks include spontaneous abortion, fetal death or stillbirth, and ectopic pregnancy.

The reduction of access to adequate healthcare, combined with a significant number of OBGYNs leaving states that have implemented abortion bans, puts these individuals at an even greater risk. For those who can travel out of state for abortions, it is worth noting that many already have children, making it financially and logistically challenging for them to undertake such travel.

People who are compelled to carry their pregnancies to term are more likely to experience depression, anxiety disorders, and poorer physical health. In contrast, those who have safe access to abortions do not face these same risks. Historically, banning abortions has not eliminated the procedure; instead, it has made it more dangerous and often fatal. Individuals may resort to unsafe methods, such as drinking toxic substances, ingesting harmful herbs that can induce labor or cause congenital disabilities, inflicting injuries to the vagina, cervix, or rectum, or repeatedly striking their abdomen.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 2.5 million unsafe abortions occur each year, leading to pregnancy complications that are responsible for nearly 8% of maternal deaths (Say et al., [24]). In the U.S., maternal health rates are concerning, with almost one death per 1,000 childbirths, making it the highest rate among industrialized countries.

The effects on LGBTQIA+

In the 1960s, many states revised sodomy laws to specifically target LGBTQIA+ individuals and restricted access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Data has shown a correlation between these laws and an increase in LGBTQIA+ youth considering suicide. Nearly one in three reported that their mental health worsened due to anti-LGBTQIA+ statutes and policies. Research indicates that having an abortion does not result in adverse short- or long-term mental health outcomes, whereas being denied access to abortion care can be detrimental.

In the article Why Sodomy Laws Matter (ACLU, 2003), we learn that initially, sodomy laws were part of a larger body of law, derived from church law, designed to prevent nonprocreative sexuality anywhere and any sexuality outside of marriage. However, with the rise of the gay rights movement in the 1960s into the 70s, states rewrote sodomy laws specifically targeting gay people. These laws were used against gay people in three ways. Initially, these laws were employed to restrict the ability of LGBTQ+ individuals to raise children. They served as a basis for denying custody to gay parents in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia. Additionally, they were used to block gay individuals from adopting children in Florida and Mississippi, as well as to prevent them from becoming foster parents in Arkansas and Missouri.

Furthermore, these laws have been invoked to justify the dismissal of LGBTQ+ employees or to deny them job opportunities, a point highlighted by the FBI in a successful case during the late 1980s. Lastly, these regulations have been leveraged in public discourse to uphold the unequal treatment of gay individuals and to undermine LGBT voices. For instance, in Utah, the sodomy law was used to argue against protections for gay individuals from hate crimes. Similarly, in states like Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas, these laws have supported various initiatives aimed at banning adoption or foster care by LGBTQ+ individuals, with some of these proposals succeeding.

This article paints a stark picture of the current landscape surrounding reproductive rights in the U.S., illustrating how legal restrictions and societal pressures disproportionately burden those who are already marginalized. Access to reproductive healthcare is not just a women's issue; it touches on broader equity, justice, and systemic inequality themes. As laws evolve, and the repercussions of decisions like the overturning of Roe v. Wade continue to unfold, it is crucial to consider the far-reaching implications of these policies on individual lives and societal structure. The fight for reproductive rights must acknowledge and address these disparities to ensure that all individuals can make informed and autonomous choices about their bodies and futures.

What can we do?

• Build Communities, small and large
• Have those hard conversations
  • First, find people you trust and feel safe with. Here is a launching point to start engaging in tough, emotionally charged conversations.
  • Find out who else in your area is having these conversations and what actions you can take.
  • Remember to care for yourself and your basic needs first so as not to overextend and deplete your energy, heart, and soul. i.e., water, bathroom, stretch, nature, breath, sleep, nap, snuggle a pet or favorite house plant...

Here is a helpful PDF guide to facilitate and establish ground rules for political discussions

Photo by Tim Marshall / Unsplash