Advocating for a Choice to Leave Poverty Behind

Reading through the week's news and interesting commentaries usually leaves me fired me up on some topic and this week was no exception. My first read of the morning had to do with recent updates from the Pew Company on Public Opinion on Abortion Rights. I was was not seeking any specific information out on this particular topic today, I just happen to believe that having an informed opinion is better than an uninformed one. I support Pro-Choice for reasons we won't go into here (at least today!), but wanted to understand where the rest of country stood. Of course Trump's "punishment" gaffe made this a trending topic, and not sure how I feel about the reason for having to be more current on this topic! My takeaway from reviewing is an understanding that this polarizing issue pretty much splits most Americans, with those against abortion in most/all at 41% of the total population and 56% felt abortion should be legal in most/all cases. Interesting. Hard choices for anyone really.

Then I read on into my weekly dose of non-partisan Constitution reading (yes, I am that nerdy) and ran across an article on what would happen if the Supreme Court ratifies or rejects the view at the case of Zubik v. Burwell, representing non-profit organizations, that may have objections to contraception and want to be exempt from required health coverage for contraception for employees. That's a continuation of the lawsuits brought on by the Hobby Lobby case (representing public corporations) in case you are not up to speed on your Supreme Court docket! Of course this topic is important due to the increased spending on health of women of child-bearing age, and projects I am personally involved with that are focused on pregnant populations and improving their overall health. But that was not really what was interesting. It made me wonder whose interests these cases were really focused on? Reading the overview of who was involved and whose interests these non-profits were focused on was quite a meandering journey! [Note that if you are looking for real people that have pious beliefs, keep looking as it's really an institute known as a  powerhouse law firm, not known for their intimate stories about raising a family!]

Since I started the morning wiht the knowledge that that only 41% of the adult population currently believes that abortion should be illegal in MOST cases but only 16% believe it should illegal in ALL cases, it made sense to me that this is the population who might therefore feels that abortion could be extended to include contraception. Again, not trying to argue the belief, it is what it is even though I have a different view. If we start with only 16% of the US population potentially opposed to contraception as a type of abortion, simple math tells us that the majority of our population that is most impacted is statistically NOT against contraception. So this is a minority (16%) imposing their will on a majority (84%). Even more telling is the fact that Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services has stated that

"In fact, nearly 99 percent of women in the United States have relied on contraceptive services"

So I feel fairly confident my simple math will apply here. If we assume that most women are actually seeking contraception then who does this case really benefit? I acknowledge that these issues are complex, but it does come down to choices and who decides what what choices you have. I do feel the need to represent the stories of a few of those women in the 84% who need an advocate in their lives. These stories are real. Access to contraception is a major effort within the healthcare industry and it drives significant socioeconomic factors for these women for the most of their lives. There are young women with unfortunate circumstances and issues such as homelessness and mental illnesses who are not prepared for self-care, let alone for caring for another. Where are these stories in the push to eliminate a choice that might give them hope to live a life outside of poverty? Who is advocating for the women who just need a few choices that many of us might not need? Reducing contraceptive choices leaves women with much harder choices to make.

And furthermore, we are all aware of Trump's "shining moment" follow-up that came when he was asked whether the man who created an unwanted pregnancy should be punished, too.:

“I would say no,” Trump quickly decreed.

Therefore, in a Trump presidency, the companies who want the exemption from contraception might directly be ensuring women who end up with an unwanted pregnancy and choose to abort are punished (I don't believe this would ever happen, but it works as a great summary point here). And is that what the non-profits in the case before the Supreme Court really stand for or is it just a byproduct of imposing their minority view on a choice that helps avoid much harder choices? I know, lots of assumptions, but look at how politicizing women's choices drives women even further away from living in a world where advocacy makes a difference.

I will leave you with what I thought was the most telling stat that summarizes my whole view...