More humans die where abortion is legal then die where abortion is illegal, so that is a dumb argument. People repeat these arguments “on faith” and not fact. In a country like Brazil where abortions are illegal about 200 women die annually. In the US between 20–30 women die having legal abortions along with hundreds of thousands of unborn babies. So let’s not use this math to argue for abortions.
Birth control and abortion are very different issues and blending them to support abortion is simply unethical and wrong. It is an attempt to use “fear” to rally support for abortion.
The issue is very simple, when does an unborn baby accrue his or her citizen rights? At that point the government has a legal obligation to protect that baby’s life even if the mother would choose to take it. I say unborn baby because even the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade acknowledged life begins at conception, but that an unborn baby did not have any “rights” until it could live outside the womb (viability).
Some are arguing consciousness should become the new standard. Several states are declaring when a baby’s heartbeat can be heard as the new standard. Some liberal states are suggesting a baby has no rights until delivered especially if it has any serious birth defects. Interesting is that it was the attempt by various liberal states to extend the laws regarding legal abortions, that seem to have triggered a response by conservative states to restrict abortions.
But whatever “standard” one argues for or against it would be hard to argue anyone’s rights are being violated by a woman taking birth control. Suggesting such is simply irresponsible. That some people oppose birth control is true, but it is a totally different matter since it is not linked to “rights”.
The issue of “morning after” pills will depend on when a “baby” has rights. If at any point, it is determined that a baby has rights at conception, then the issue over whether “morning after” pills should be legal to manufacture and distribute and who should be able to purchase them becomes real. But I seriously doubt this will emerge as a real “legal” issue.
Furthermore, how would anyone prosecute a woman for taking one that did not know if she was pregnant or not. All she would have known at the time was she had sex.
Finally confusing what people can legally do (like taking birth control or the “morning after” pill) with health insurance coverage is also dumb. What is covered and what is not covered by an insurance plan is something that gets argued on a regular basis by employers, the public, and health insurance companies. It would take a whole separate article to address the various factors that go into determining whether something should be a covered benefit or not so I won’t address it here. But I was working for a health insurance company when “birth control” benefits were first introduced by corporations as a “covered benefit” and the debate had little to do with anything related to abortion.
