Judging an individual can be a risky venture if done poorly, or even at all. Stereotypes are used to understand strangers, but the conclusions made are not always the end all, be all. By simply looking at someone, you are not able to understand what makes them laugh or cry; how much love they give and receive; whether someone close to them has recently passed; or whether they have had an abortion. If someone realized the stranger in front of them had an abortion, many would reasonably feel anger, remorse, or resentment towards them. What they do not realize though, is that abortion, in many cases, intrinsically stems from the hope for a better future—whether that emerges from a mother’s knowledge that she will not be able to sustain her child or, in Amelia Bonow’s case, knowing she will have a better quality of life. Bonow, currently a writer and activist, became pregnant accidentally and had an abortion as a young woman—feeling happy knowing that she would not be a mother. She noted the care and consideration she felt from the nurses and counselors of Planned Parenthood. They did not judge her for aborting her child—even when it seemed like everyone else did (Bonow). 

The extensive amount of a responsibility a mother takes on is unfathomable, unless of course, you are a mother. It is heartbreaking knowing that you will not be able to raise a child that society expects you to keep; therefore, a good number of women make the decision to walk into Planned Parenthood and remove the fetus. Controversy not only pops up during the abortion itself, but also after the abortion—centered around the mental health of the woman. Thousands of studies have concluded that abortion has no long-term negative mental effects, which is why women should have access to it; however, because it has none of these effects, it also shouldn’t be stigmatized, and women should continue to have access to quality care. The funding behind abortion clinics is starting to dwindle because of political debates, but since women will have abortions no matter the legality, shouldn’t they be performed in a clean, professional environment?

In 2015, an activist by the name of Aspen Baker, spoke at a Ted Talks conference about the importance of listening without judgement. After her abortion as a young woman, she realized that everyone has a separate story and reasoning as to why they get an abortion. These women cannot all be placed into a single category. Each woman who has an abortion does it for a specific reason—whether that has to do with feeling unprepared, wanting an improved professional life, not wanting a child at all, or simply, having enough children already. Sure, some of these reasons may seem very unethical, but to that one woman, it was enough of a reason to abort her child and she should not be judged for that. Baker coined the term, “pro-voice”.  Pro-voice means you listen to the stories of others without judgement—without falling into the categories of pro-life or pro-choice, but respecting everyone’s decisions. Everyone, no matter their beliefs, should have a no-judgment attitude when it comes to the topic of abortion, because, let’s face it, the controversy of abortion is not going to die down anytime soon. If each person equipped their mind to respect other’s beliefs and choices, our world would likely be a peaceful place. 

From a legal standpoint, laws of abortion have changed dramatically since the first legal, but limited, acceptance of abortion in the United States—the Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. Although not necessarily pressing in modern day, Roe v. Wade created a precedent for the laws and standards of the freedom of abortion in years to come. More recently, court cases have revolved around the limitations of abortion and potentially harmful abortion clinic environments. Although each individual state can set their standards on when an abortion can be performed, the three laws concerning trimesters still remain intact: a state cannot regulate abortion during the first trimester; during the second trimester, the state may create certain laws which only allow an abortion if the woman’s health is jeopardized; lastly, during the third trimester, the potential life outweighs the mother’s right to privacy in all cases—meaning, abortions are not permitted in any circumstance (How Did Abortion Become Legal?). In the most recent Supreme Court case concerning reproductive rights, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled that abortion clinics are required to meet surgical-center operating standards—a real necessity for the health of women. These laws evidently apply only to the citizens of the United States. Other countries, such as Ireland, see very limited freedoms when it comes to abortion. As stated by Milligan from a report in U.S. News and World Report, a woman in Ireland is permitted to have an abortion only if her own life is a stake. Now let’s be honest, most of the time, a woman wants an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. She often times feels as though she is not ready to raise a child—in the end, wanting a better life for not only herself, but possibly for the father and her future children. To really put these assertions into numbers, between 1980 and 2014, at least 163,514 Irish women have travelled to another country to have an abortion (Milligan). This number does not include the sheer quantity of women who obtain abortions through the black market—an extremely dangerous gamble because of possible health risks. Although the United States does not have such an immense sum of women leaving the country to get abortions currently, the number will begin to increase if states like Texas, a highly conservative state, start shutting down abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood- which not only perform abortions, but provide services concerned with STDs, pregnancy, primary care needs, and men’s health. 

Pro-life and conservative supporters seem to believe health clinics will shut down if funding stops, but they do not understand these clinics not only provide abortion services, but also provide services which benefit pregnant women, individuals with STDs, and men who need a little help. My point is, the people who try to outlaw clinics are the ones who either use or need to use the service. Although a few of these clinics may go out of business because of the defunding, most will keep their doors open to continue providing their plethora of services, but at the cost of cleanliness. As policies for shutting down and limiting the funding of clinics continues to grow, the sanitation levels of the clinics decrease—leaving men and women in unsafe conditions. An article written for Patriot Post, a conservative news source, exemplifies the complete uncleanliness of an abortion clinic and how it affects the health of the women. Although the article is undeniably pro-life, the argument can be interpreted two ways. The news source wants you to believe that abortion clinics are dirty because of the operations they perform, but they do not point out that abortion clinics are unclean because their funding has diminished significantly. No matter how much funding a health or abortion clinic receives, the public will still use the services provided and women will still get abortions—even if that means they have to get them illegally. As stated previously, policies concerning the cleanliness of clinics are beginning to take shape with the help of a few lawmakers and the Supreme Court case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt—hopefully leading to an exponentially increasing improvement of clinic sanitation standards (Justia Law). 

The fight for reproductive rights and safety is not the only concern though. Post-abortion, many individuals seem to believe women are extremely susceptible to mental health issues. Various studies, performed by highly qualified scholars, have concluded that abortions can lead to mental health problems such as anxiety and depression. Although seemingly believable, these studies leave out an important factor which may contribute to two distinct and contradicting conclusions, confounding variables. Confounding variables are outside factors not accounted for in the data—which may skew the results towards one conclusion over another. When studying the impact of abortion on mental health, it is pretty easy for a confounding variable to impact the data. For instance, if a woman experiences depression following an abortion, the cause of the mental health problem might just stem from the abortion, but it could also stem from the loss of a family member or the loss of a job. In general, it is very difficult to account for every confounding variable, but as of recently, researchers have figured out a way around that problem. As cited in the recent study, “Abortion and Mental Health: Findings from the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication,” researchers, Steinberg, McCulloch, and Adler, tested the number of mental health problems a woman had before and after the abortion—leaving no room for confounding variables. Through statistical analysis, the researchers concluded that abortions do not cause an increase in mental health issues. You may be saying “That is just one study”, but in fact, with a Google search, you can find thousnds and thousands of similar studies which have the same results. A New York Times article written by Pam Belluck, “Abortion Is Found to Have Little Effect on Women’s Mental Health,” cites a multitude of these similar studies which, from what you can tell by the title, exacerbate how little abortions affect the mental health of women. 

Abortion has always been a prevalent topic in political campaigns. Commonly, voters sway their votes based on the political nominee’s opinion of abortion. In more recent years, the debate between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” has increased exponentially. Both sides protest their beliefs—in my opinion, the pro-life activists acting a little more hostile by angrily protesting outside abortion clinics. In most cases, if a woman accidentally gets pregnant and decides she does not want the child, she will either give him/her up for adoption or will abort it. Put simply, if a woman is placed into a similar situation, she will, innately, do what she thinks is best for the future of herself, the child, and the rest of her family. 

Society, for the most part, understandably feels negatively toward the idea of abortion—sometimes stemming from religious beliefs and other times, simply from personal feelings regarding abortion. In the words of many pro-life activists, the woman is in fact ending the life of a human being. The baby nestled in her stomach, as stereotypical as it sounds, could have cured cancer, fought for the rights of others, and even could have taught a first-grade class—motivating young children to be the best they can be. Instead, that baby is no more. But when you think about it, there are millions of babies born every day who could also cure cancer, fight for the rights of others, and teach a first-grade class to be the best they can be. The bright minds born into today’s world have the same probability of achieving greatness as did all the lives lost to abortion. 

A recent observational study conducted by Steinberg and Tschann, “Childhood Adversities and Subsequent Risk of One or Multiple Abortions,” found the effects of an adverse childhood to be a huge factor in leading a woman to experience abortion later in life. An adverse childhood experience could range from various types of abuse and neglect to living in an impoverishing environment. To avoid the inclusion of confounding variables, the researchers tested a group of women who experienced adverse living conditions compared to those women who have not. They noted how many women of each group had an abortion, tested the statistical significance of the data, and concluded that the women who did in fact have an adverse childhood were more likely to have an abortion later in life. Put simply, maybe not the majority, but a large group of women could have forgone the awful experience of aborting their child if their life as a child was more decent. Abuse, neglect, and poverty are all preventable—leading to the thought that maybe the politicians can focus more on improving the quality of a woman’s life rather than focusing on how much of a disappointment and detriment this woman is to society. Contrary to popular belief, if politicians use those methods, abortion rates will go down with the added benefit of a decline in adverse environments. 

When a woman makes the decision to have an abortion, she often times does it without any visits to a therapist, counselor, or primary doctor. According to the psychologists and researchers, Rachel Needle and Lenore Walker, visiting at least one of those doctors is an important first step before actually having the abortion. By visiting a doctor, the woman will feel more prepared in what she will experience, and, if she feels even the bit undecided, the doctor can help guide her through the decision-making process by examining the pros and cons of aborting. These assertions seem to almost contradict my argument, but when a woman undergoes therapy, for example, she will be better equipped to make a decision which benefits her. That decision may be to keep the baby or to abort it, but either way, if the woman gains an improved quality of life, the care provided was worth it. Contrarily, according to Needle and Walker’s book, Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency, if a woman proceeds with the pregnancy and has a baby which she was going to abort initially, the woman’s quality of life plummets. Her mental health will not be the only downfall though. Her child’s mental health will also be severely impacted because, inadvertently, the woman will, in most cases, treat her child in a way which mimics abuse. 

The overall health of women should be, but unfortunately is not, a great concern throughout the world. Even in the United States, “the land of the free”, women are held captive by the lack of freedom they have in some respects. As proposed throughout my argument, the reproductive rights of women are extremely limited, especially concerning abortion. Lawmakers continue to defund health and abortion clinics, but by doing this, the clinics to compromise sanitation in order to stay afloat. In turn, if abortion clinics begin to shut down in the United States, women will find other ways to get an abortion, often times in other countries—which may have worse sanitation conditions. As of recently, many pro-life supporters have highlighted the ways in which abortion causes mental health problems, but these beliefs have been proven wrong by highly qualified scholars. In opposition, limiting women’s allowance of having an abortion leads to mental health problems. Every person, no matter their gender, race, or age needs to be respected. Women who have had an abortion live in fear, without telling anyone of their experience because of the possibility of judgement and harassment. Instead of supporting pro-life or pro-choice, the world needs to support pro-voice. 
