Anti-choice policies make Ohio poorer, less healthy
Awoman’s ability to decide whether to have children, when to have them and how many to have shapes much of her life. It often affects her earnings potential, educational attainment, mental and physical health and even whether she marries for love.
While ProgressOhio supports the right of individuals to decide whether to continue an unintended pregnancy, the Democratic Party must not embrace candidates who oppose abortion rights on a policy level. Such a policy shift is an affront to progressives’ most cherished values.
It’s also a losing electoral strategy.
Polling consistently shows that a strong majority of Americans and Ohioans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Research also shows that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. These metrics suggest that abortion is not particularly controversial.
In the past, when abortion rights have been threatened, those threats mobilized prochoice voters.
In July 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U. S. Supreme Court gave states greater leeway to restrict abortions. The 1990 elections offer several telltale races that show the electoral strength of the pro-choice position: In Virginia, Democrat Douglas Wilder upset Republican rival J. Marshall Coleman by emphasizing his opposition to any change in the state’s relatively lenient abortion laws. In Florida, Democrat Lawton Chiles defeated incumbent Republican Gov. Bob Martinez, who, in the wake of Webster, had championed restrictive laws for Florida.
In Texas, Democrat Ann Richards was elected governor after making opposition to Webster a centerpiece of her campaign. Exit polls showed she captured more than 60 percent of the women’s vote, including 25 percent of Republican women.
ProgressOhio and its other state affiliates recently sent a letter to members of the Democratic National Committee urging them to redouble their commitment to abortion access, not back away from it as some party leaders are suggesting.
Hillary Clinton’s defeat prompted mostly male party leaders to call for a softening of support for abortion access, arguing it could help attract more moderate and rural voters.
Our letter comes amid a full-fledged war on women by a president who is an unapologetic sexist and who has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women. Yet Donald Trump’s election has not sent women recoiling. It has inspired women’s marches, ignited new women-led resistance groups and helped to elect an improbable group of women to local offices and state legislatures.
Instead of rushing to scoop up Trump voters, Democrats should reinforce their belief that autonomy over one’s body is a basic human right — a right under constant attack. Ohio is a good example.
Our pro-choice state has allowed 20 new abortion restrictions because of badly gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts that encourage majority Republicans to emphasize social issues, not economic and fiscal ones. That has left Ohio in chaos.
Today, the Buckeye State is known for stubbornly high infant mortality. About 20 percent of our kids live in poverty and Ohio is among the national leaders in opioid-overdose deaths. Maternal mortality is rising. To quote pro-charter-school advocate Greg Harris, most Ohio charter schools “stink.”
Even after the U. S. Supreme Court tossed out Texas abortion restrictions because they hurt women’s health, Ohio legislators continue to pass similarly dangerous, unnecessary laws.
Democratic Party leaders must stop viewing abortion as a social issue. Abortion is an economic issue and a health-care issue. Antichoice policies undercut economic and racial justice and are making Ohio poorer and less healthy.
Now is the time for Democrats to reaffirm their support for the human rights of women. There is no acceptable version of the Democratic Party that does not champion the right of half its members to control their bodies.