Sen. Tim Kaine, speaking about abortion in the vice-presidential debate, asked his pro-life opponent [Indiana Gov. Mike Pence]: “[W]hy don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves? … [W]hy don’t you trust women?”
This is popular rhetoric among defenders of abortion, but it seems odd because it completely sidesteps the issue. After all, what if a particular choice is unjust? Shouldn’t that unjust act be prohibited? We could try “trusting” people not to make the unjust choice, but what if, nevertheless, that unjust choice is made more than a million times every year (as the choice of abortion is)? Shouldn’t the government act to prevent the injustice?
Consider a different issue. Why don’t we trust men to make the choice of whether or not to pay child support? Should we eliminate child support requirements? No, of course not—because the law should ensure that children receive the support they need.
Or consider infanticide. Why don’t we trust parents with the decision of whether or not to kill or abandon their newborn children? Because newborn children have a right to life and deserve society’s protection.
Many choices—like deciding what to eat for dinner—should be permitted by law. They are choices that the law should “trust” people to make for themselves. But other choices—like abandoning a newborn baby—should not be permitted because they harm innocent people.
So what kind of choice is abortion? Does it unjustly take the life of a valuable human being? That is the question that must be addressed.
Kaine’s rhetoric assumes that abortion is not unjust. It assumes that abortion is more like deciding what to eat for dinner than like killing an innocent person. But this is precisely what is at issue in the abortion debate. Kaine’s empty language offers no actual reason to think that his position on abortion is true.
Editor’s note. Paul Stark is Communications Associate for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.
The slogan “Trust Women” has become a rallying cry for many in the pro-choice movement, encapsulating the belief that women should have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies, including the decision to have an abortion. While the sentiment behind “Trust Women” is rooted in the advocacy for women’s rights and bodily autonomy, a closer examination reveals significant gaps and contradictions that underscore the emptiness of this phrase when it is used to justify abortion without addressing the broader context of women’s needs and well-being.
The Oversimplification of Complex Realities
“Trust Women” implies a simplistic approach to a deeply complex issue. It suggests that the decision to have an abortion is straightforward and solely based on a woman’s autonomy, ignoring the myriad factors that influence this decision. These factors include socioeconomic pressures, lack of access to healthcare and support services, and societal stigmas. By focusing narrowly on autonomy, the slogan neglects the broader systemic issues that often drive women to consider abortion in the first place.
Ignoring Coercion and Lack of Choice
One of the critical flaws in the “Trust Women” narrative is its failure to account for the instances where women do not truly have a choice. Many women face immense pressure from partners, family members, or their economic circumstances, leading them to opt for abortion not out of genuine desire but out of a perceived necessity. Trusting women should also mean ensuring that they have real alternatives and support systems in place so that they can make decisions free from coercion.
Overlooking the Impact on Mental Health
The slogan also glosses over the emotional and psychological consequences that abortion can have on women. Numerous studies and personal testimonies reveal that many women experience significant emotional distress, guilt, and regret following an abortion. Trusting women should involve providing them with comprehensive information about potential mental health impacts and ensuring they have access to counseling and support services both before and after the procedure.
Devaluing Unborn Lives
“Trust Women” focuses exclusively on the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman, often at the expense of considering the life and rights of the unborn child. This perspective can be seen as dehumanizing to the unborn, reducing them to a mere choice rather than recognizing their potential as individuals. A truly compassionate approach would seek to balance the rights and well-being of both the woman and the unborn child, fostering a culture that values and supports life at all stages.
Alternatives and Support Systems
If we genuinely trust women, we must ensure they have access to a range of support services that empower them to make informed choices. This includes providing comprehensive sex education, accessible contraception, prenatal and postnatal care, and robust adoption services. Programs like Real Alternatives offer crucial support to women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, providing counseling, material assistance, and parenting education.
Societal and Policy Changes
Trusting women also means advocating for policies that address the root causes of unwanted pregnancies. This includes tackling poverty, improving healthcare access, and ensuring gender equality in all spheres of life. By addressing these underlying issues, we can create a society where women are genuinely empowered to make choices that are best for them and their families, rather than feeling compelled to choose abortion due to lack of support.
A Holistic Approach
A truly holistic approach to trusting women would encompass supporting them through all stages of pregnancy and motherhood, ensuring they have the resources, information, and support they need. It would recognize the value of both the woman’s life and the unborn child’s life, fostering a culture of respect and care for all.
Conclusion
While the slogan “Trust Women” resonates with a fundamental desire for autonomy and respect, its application in the context of abortion often reveals significant shortcomings. Trusting women should not mean abandoning them to make difficult decisions in isolation or under pressure. Instead, it should mean providing comprehensive support, addressing systemic issues, and valuing both women and their unborn children. By adopting a more nuanced and compassionate approach, we can better support women in making truly informed and autonomous decisions.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
