Keep Your Laws Away From My Uterus

You Need To Keep Your Laws Out Of My Uterus

I've already written about this topic, but the situation has gotten worse.


I may have already written about my thoughts of being pro-choice in the context of abortions, but the situation has gotten worse and I have returned to say this: how the hell did we get to this point?

You've probably heard by now what lawmakers in Georgia and Alabama have been up to. While other states have been working on their own absurd laws, those bills are likely to face litigation in the future, according to USA Today. Their article goes on to explain that the current law in both Georgia and Alabama is that abortion is prohibited past 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the health of the person carrying the baby is at risk (friendly reminder that not everyone who is at risk with these new laws identify as women even if they still have a functioning uterus, and their identities are still perfectly valid even if that is the case).

Georgia's new law, scheduled to take effect on January 1 of next year, is also known as the "heartbeat bill" because it prohibits abortions after a fetus' heartbeat has been detected around six weeks of pregnancy. In case you weren't familiar with how a female reproductive system works, this would mean one's period is only two weeks late and would not always raise alarm due to how common it is for cycles to shift around.

In comparison, Alabama's law would ban abortions at any state in pregnancy unless the physical and/or mental health of the pregnant person is at risk. Alabama law would not account for cases of pregnancies caused by rape and/or incest, but Georgia's law offers an exception: the pregnancy must not be more than 20 weeks long and an official police report needs to have been filed.

Do you want to know why that is ridiculous? According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), out of every 1,000 rape cases, only 230 are reported to police, but that does not mean the report will even be taken seriously by officials or that the rapist will face any repercussions. Many people do not report or talk about their sexual abuse for a number of reasons, and frankly, they don't have to say anything if they don't feel comfortable doing so. This "exception" would take away a vital, empowering aspect of the recovery process for someone who endured trauma that was not even their fault.

In addition, a person who has been impregnated by a rapist should not be forced to carry the rapist's child if the person does not choose to do so. How would it feel to be forced to go through an invasive, uncomfortable process like pregnancy and end up with a physical manifestation of the trauma?

I am a Christian, but I strongly do not believe it is "God's will" that pregnancy occurring under these awful circumstances would even happen in the first place. To be pro-birth and have this as an argument is abhorrently despicable; you do not have the right to invalidate someone's trauma because of your own beliefs that the other person may not share, and you most certainly do not have the right to create policies based on your religious affiliation. Remember the entire concept involving the separation of church and state?

The current law in Georgia charges lawbreakers with one to 10 years in prison and does not specify anything under the new law, but the new Alabama law would charge anyone that performs an abortion to life or 10-99 years in prison; attempting to perform an abortion would result in one to 10 years. The person who receives the abortion, the person who performs the abortion, or a pharmacist who prescribes medicine that causes an abortion would not face murder charges, but it is speculated that this could change or be added later due to the ongoing debate whether or not a fetus is a "natural citizen." In addition, it has been revoltingly discussed if the theoretical murder charges would carry over to a person who miscarries; you know, a tragic occurrence that the pregnant person cannot control.

The absurdity doesn't end there within this new conversation. According to Statehouse News Bureau, Ohio is considering an anti-abortion bill that would be even more restrictive than the heartbeat bill. As said in the article, "the bill would ban nontherapeutic abortions that include 'drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.'"

Devices that prevent a fertilized ovum (a sperm that has reached an egg) from implanting are also known as contraceptives which include, but are not limited to, male and female condoms, birth control pills that prevent ovulation (an egg being released during the female reproductive cycle), intrauterine devices (IUDs), Plan B, etc. These devices are used to prevent a pregnancy from occurring in the first place, so why are they even relevant to the topic of abortion (hint: it helps control the bodies of people with uteruses, but I'll get into that in a second)? By the way, people use hormone-based birth control for reasons outside of pregnancy prevention; those with endometriosis/polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and/or intense PMS use the hormones to stabilize their reproductive systems.

The very same bill also speaks of ectopic/tubal pregnancies (when a fertilized ovum implants outside of the uterus, generally in a fallopian tube). It is incredibly rare for this type of pregnancy to be viable, so they usually end in termination because they would be fatal to the pregnant person otherwise. However, Ohio member of the House of Representatives John Becker (R), says the bill would not categorize termination under this case as abortion because "part of that treatment would be removing that embryo from the fallopian tube and reinserting it in the uterus." This method is physically and medically impossible because it does not exist. If you're going to support bills that police a person's reproductive system, perhaps you should know the absolute bare minimum about how they function and not create policies based on nonsense.

Supporters of these anti-abortion laws can be incredibly hypocritical; they go on and on about the importance of life, but what happens if the baby is born as an immigrant (answer: they are taken from their families and placed in literal cages). What happens if the baby is black (answer: they are systematically more likely to be subject to police brutality). What happens if the baby's parent was forced to have the child and it is born into a financially insecure household? What happens if the child attends public school and is subjected to gun violence due to a lack of gun control?

The point I'm trying to make here is that if you claim to be "pro-life" but don't show that same concern for people who have already been born and are dealing with problems that lawmakers/society refuse to address, then you need to do some serious self-reflection on your morals and if you follow through on your claims. If all you care about is the fetus being born, then (in my viewpoint) this entire debate just boils down to controlling people's bodies.

While these laws are unconstitutional anyway due to Roe v. Wade (1973) deciding that people have the right to choose if they want to have an abortion, this could be part of the process to have the source overturned as pointed out by the previously linked article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is because of the two newest members of the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were chosen due to their "pro-life" beliefs as promised by President Donald Trump during his campaign in 2016. Even if the abortion bans are unconstitutional now, they may not be if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

If you haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale" or even watched the show if you have access to it, I highly recommend it because you'll notice some unnerving parallels between a fictional dystopia and what our reality is turning into. I support the pro-choice movement because it's all about an individual's right to choose whatever it is they want to do in the event of an unanticipated pregnancy. You don't get to create policies that dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies. I absolutely will not stand for it.

Popular Right Now

PSA: Keep Your Body-Negative Opinions Away From Little Girls This Summer

But our own baggage shouldn't be shoved on to those we surround ourselves with.


It's officially swimsuit season, y'all.

The temperature is rising, the sun is bright and shining, and a trip to the beach couldn't look more appealing than it does right now. This is the time of year that many of us have been rather impatiently waiting for. It's also the time of year that a lot of us feel our most self-conscious.

I could take the time to remind you that every body is a bikini body. I could type out how everyone is stunning in their own unique way and that no one should feel the need to conform to a certain standard of beauty to feel beautiful, male or female. I could sit here and tell you that the measurement of your waistline is not a reflection of your worth. I completely believe every single one of these things.

Hell, I've shared these exact thoughts more times than I can count. This time around, however, I'm not going to say all these things. Instead, I'm begging you to push your insecurities to the side and fake some confidence in yourself when you're in front of others.


Because our negative self-image is toxic and contagious and we're spreading this negative thinking on to others.

We're all guilty of this, we're with family or a friend and we make a nasty comment about some aspect of our appearance, not even giving a single thought to the impact our words have on the person with us. You might think that it shouldn't bother them- after all, we're not saying anything bad about them! We're just expressing our feelings about something we dislike about ourselves. While I agree that having conversations about our insecurities and feelings are important for our mental and emotional health, there is a proper and improper way of doing it. An open conversation can leave room for growth, acceptance, understanding, and healing. Making a rude or disheartening remark about yourself is destructive not only to yourself, but it will make the person you are saying these things around question their own self worth or body image by comparing themselves to you.

My little sister thinks she's "fat." She doesn't like how she looks. To use her own words, she thinks she's "too chubby" and that she "looks bad in everything."

She's 12 years old.

Do you want to know why she has this mindset? As her older sister, I failed in leading her by example. There were plenty of times when I was slightly younger, less sure of myself, and far more self-conscious than I am now, that I would look in the mirror and say that I looked too chubby, that my body didn't look good enough, that I wished I could change the size of my legs or stomach.

My little sister had to see the older sibling she looks up to, the big sis she thinks always looks beautiful, say awful and untrue things about herself because her own sense of body image was warped by media, puberty, and comparing herself to others.

My negativity rubbed off onto her and shaped how she looks at herself. I can just imagine her watching me fret over how I look thinking, "If she thinks she's too big, what does that make me?"

It makes me feel sick.

All of us are dealing with our own insecurities. It takes some of us longer than others to view ourselves in a positive, loving light. We're all working on ourselves every day, whether it be mentally, physically, or emotionally. But our own baggage shouldn't be shoved on to those we surround ourselves with, our struggles and insecurities should not form into their own burdens.

Work on yourself in private. Speak kindly of yourself in front of others. Let your positivity, real or not, spread to others instead of the bad feelings we have a bad habit of letting loose.

The little girls of the world don't need your or my negative self-image this summer. Another kid doesn't need to feel worthless because we couldn't be a little more loving to ourselves and a lot more conscious of what we say out loud.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

I Am Pro-Life, And I Am Tired Of Being Attacked For My Opinion

I am pro-life from a secular and logical standpoint.


We live in a country based on free speech, so why are pro-lifers verbally and physically attacked for merely their stance on a controversial topic? Why is Instagram censoring pro-life voices? Social media users should be given both sides of the argument, then allowed to make an informed decision, but by showing them only pro-choice content, their opinion will be biased.

Harmless pro-life posts are being shadow-banned from popular hashtags, lowering reach and engagement. There is a problem when non-violent, non-hateful posts showcasing people holding up signs that say, "Voices for the Voiceless", are censored.

Why are pro-choicers allowed to share their opinions on social media and be praised, while pro-lifers lose followers for sharing a pro-life post? It is vital that people have different opinions, and shunning pro-lifers encourages homogeneity of political opinions. Pro-lifers should not lose friends. Pro-lifers should not be attacked. Pro-lifers should not be scared of speaking up for what they believe is right.

I am pro-life, but I respect everyone's opinion. Instead of shunning the opposite side, I try to hear them out and understand where they are coming from.

Instead of dismissing pro-lifers as being old white men trying to control women's bodies, why not hear them out and try to understand the reasoning behind their opinions?

I used to be neutral on the topic of abortion, until a month ago, when I saw something that completely changed my perspective. It was around the time Governor Kemp signed the fetal heartbeat bill in Georgia, and it was a hot topic, so I decided to do some research. I came across a sight called "Priests For Life". "Oh great", I thought, "This site is going to impose its Christian views of abortion on everyone." Once on the site, I clicked on a tab titled, "America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees Abortion."

I clicked on the gallery, and was confronted with the cold hard truth. View the gallery with extreme caution, because the images/videos are VERY graphic.

From this site, I also discovered that planned parenthood harvests and sells the body parts of aborted babies. Keep in mind, Planned Parenthood, providing 1/3 of abortions in America, receives $500 million dollars yearly from taxpayers. Having taxpayers' money going toward reforming foster care would be a better idea in my opinion.

The Declaration of Independence states, "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The difference in opinion on whether the law should protect unborn children is a major factor that divides the pro-life and pro-choice movements.

In my humble opinion, I believe an unborn child should be protected by the law once a heartbeat is detected. We cannot dehumanize unborn children with euphemisms such as "clump of cells" or "potential life". We were all once "a clump of cells", and we still are. Can you name one non-living thing with a heartbeat? There is none.

The level of development of a human does not detract from his/her rights. All lives matter!

The most common pro-choice argument is "My body my choice." Yes, your body your choice, but when it's not your body, it's not your choice. The baby has its own unique set of DNA, its own organs, its own limbs, brain activity and a heartbeat. Just because a woman carries a baby does not give her a right to end his/her life.

Some may say the fetus cannot survive on its own, but a 1 month infant cannot either. A one month old infant depends on the care of a mother or guardian, and if it were to be left without food or water, it would not be able to fend for itself. Someone on life support cannot survive without the incubator. Elderly people with dementia depend on the care of staff in senior centers for survival.

The parasite argument is also a common one. Basic biology can refute this one. An unborn child in the womb is not a parasite, because for it to be a parasite it would have to be a different species than the mother, which would cause an adverse immune response.

"Everyone has the right to choose," is found on almost every pro-choice protest sign, and yes I agree. You have the right to choose to do whatever you want, but the second your actions harm another human's rights, a line must be drawn.

A women's right to choose ends when her baby's right to life begins.

Another common argument that is condescending towards pro-lifers is that they are pro-birth but not pro-life. Tell that to the thousands of pro-lifers adopting multiple children, giving them the best possible life. Tell that to the people outside of planned parenthood with signs that say "I will take your baby." Tell that to the numerous churches helping pregnant women. Tell that to the government who is giving single mothers tax breaks, food stamps and countless other resources.

The foster system may be flawed, but that is not justify ending the life of a child. More than 18,000 American families successfully adopt newborn babies in the United States every year.

Regardless, suffering is inevitable; you cannot end a child's life because he/she will live a difficult life. Instead, legislation should be passed to improve the foster care system and the adoption process. When a child is not aborted there is always hope, a chance, a possibility.

Some "pro-lifers" say, "I am pro-life for my body, but pro-choice for everyone else". This reasoning fails in many ways. You never hear anyone say, "I would never abuse my child, but I would never take away a parent's choice of if they want to abuse their child or not". Being pro-life means advocating for the defenseless, which means every single child, not just your own.

Women can do whatever they want with their lives, as long as their actions do not end the heartbeat of another human being.

All over social media, you see people sharing posts that say the women will be sentenced to 99 years of jail for having an abortion and 30 years for a miscarriage, but this is false. Often celebrities are the ones using their platforms to share these false statements. People should also fact-check the things they see on Instagram before believing them.

One line all pro-choicers say is "No uterus, no opinion". Let's not forget the people who made abortion legal were old, white men. This line is hypocrisy at its finest. If the line was "No prostate, no opinion", World War III would break out.

Most people are outraged by the fact that majority of the politicians who signed the heartbeat bill in Georgia were men, but let us not forget that Georgia residents vote for these representatives knowing the policies they advocate for. Around 40% of Americans are pro-life, and around 40% of women are pro-life, but these percentages are significantly greater in Conservative states, which explains the election of conservative representatives in Georgia and Alabama.

Pro-choicers often paint an image of pro-lifers as men who want to control the bodies of women, but that could not be any further from the truth. Abortion allows men to use women and not be held responsible for the consequences. Banning abortion teaches men responsibility and loyalty.

The purpose of the pro-life movement is not to control a woman's body but rather grant an innocent, unborn child the fundamental right to life.

Regardless of my pro-life stance, I do believe abortion should be allowed in RARE cases; for example, when the mother's health is in danger.

I agree these anti-abortion bills put a lot of stress on the mother, so I am all for increasing the involvement of the father. Whether it be increasing the amount and frequency of child support payments or making the father co-parent, it takes two to create a child, so the father should pull his weight.

Dr. Martin Luther King Sr. once said, "Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."

This article is not meant to shun anyone who has had an abortion or is pro-choice. I respect your stance 100 percent. The purpose of this article is to address the social media bias towards liberal views of abortion and the stigma of leaning toward the right on abortion. There is no one right answer to this debate. It is not always black and white; that is why the abortion debate has been going on for decades.

Related Content

Facebook Comments