What Women Deserve

I have to hand it to Harvard Right To Life (HRL). After last year’s Natalie posters, I did not think they could possibly come up with a campaign that bothered me more. It’s pretty hard to follow enlarged color photographs of fetuses and cutesy sayings like, “I’ve developed toes!” They went for shock value, they targeted emotions and preyed on guilt. And yet this year, I find their campaign much more maddening.

Unlike last year’s bright yellow beacons of moral authority, the new soft-colored posters deliver the seemingly innocuous message that “Women Deserve Better.” Being a woman, I tend to agree with that statement. Women deserve better jobs and salaries, better educational opportunities and we deserve better than the constant threat of sexual violence. Yet this doesn’t seem to be what HRL is arguing for. They must believe that women deserve better than the option of safe, legal abortions, better than reproductive freedom. In other words, women deserve better than being in control of their own bodies.

The poster states “abortion is never the right choice for a woman.” I would beg to differ. Abortion is never an easy choice, but that is the only absolute that can be applied to it. When a woman is not ready for motherhood, it should not be forced on her. Despite what some may think, abortion is not birth control for the lazy playgirl. It is not something women plan to have repeatedly because they haven’t bothered to get a prescription for the pill. Any time that a woman considers abortion it is because she is in a desperate situation. No one, even we who are pro-choice, would suggest abortion lightly. Yet there are many cases when it is absolutely the right choice for a woman.

Having gone to public schools in Hartford, Conn., a city where more girls become teenage mothers than graduate high school, I am only too aware of the situations of young mothers. I challenge HRL to show me how dropping out of high school to raise a child without the time, money or maturity necessary for its support is undoubtedly the better choice for a woman than an abortion. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, only one third of teenage mothers are likely to get high school diplomas, with only 1.5 percent graduating from college by the age of 30. Even if they choose to give their child up for adoption, women who give birth at a young age have a higher maternal death rate and are more susceptible to obesity and hypertension as adults than those who delayed motherhood even into their 20s. For women who do have abortions, according to Planned Parenthood, “serious, long term emotional problems are rare, and less frequent than with childbirth.” And is it truly in the best interest of the child? Children of teenage parents are more likely to have health problems, to perform poorly in school, and to experience abuse and neglect than children of older parents, as the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy points out.

So why aren’t the anti-abortion activists who intimidate girls into motherhood also there to help them through it? Why did I know people who had to leave high school so they could hold down the multiple jobs they needed to support their children? Why doesn’t HRL offer free day care? If anti-choice groups would deny women comprehensive family planning, they should be there to help them through the motherhood they might not be ready for. The Crisis Pregnancy Centers that HRL advertises do offer many helpful services for pregnant women, but these are all short term. Furthermore, the goal of these centers is to convince women not to choose abortion, and a center’s “success rate” depends on the number of women they persuade, according to the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Planned Parenthood offers similar services and lets the woman decide what is best for her.

Why, when anti-choice legislators pushed so hard to have health insurance extended to fetuses, are they not fighting just as hard for universal health care? Why do so many of those same legislators favor expanding capital punishment instead of abolishing it? Why do “pro-life” groups stop caring for the living?

If anti-choice groups were truly committed to reducing the number of abortions, wouldn’t they be in favor of comprehensive sex education, complete with preventative measures that extend beyond abstinence? Shouldn’t HRL be out there with Students For Choice, handing out condoms and educating students about the various methods of birth control? To be effective they must be proactive. Accept that premarital sex is a societal norm and educate people about safety and responsibility. Or, preach abstinence—but don’t be surprised when people accidentally become pregnant and desire the option of an abortion.

What bothers me is that HRL has taken a feminist idea, that women deserve better, and co-opted it to deny women rights. Harvard Right To Life has the right to poster what they wish, and as tempted as I have been, I have never defaced or torn down one of their posters. Free speech must extend to all. But since the poster doesn’t specifically state what exactly it is that women deserve better than, I will take this opportunity to complete the thought:

Women deserve better than to be forced into motherhood when they know they are not ready.

Women deserve better than to be forced to carry to term what could be the results of rape or incest.

Women deserve better than losing their ability to ever have children because at one point they were in such a desperate need of an abortion that they mutilated themselves.

Women deserve better than having to resort to back alleys, coat hangers and quack doctors because safe, legal services are not available.

Women deserve the freedom of choice. In fact, nothing could be better.

Karen R. Taylor ’06, a history and literature concentrator in Currier House, is a member of Harvard Students For Choice.