The Dichotomy of the Pro-Life Movement
Is it really about safety?
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen were cases heard by the US Supreme Court in 2022. The first overturned Roe v. Wade and moved to increase fetal life protections. The second loosened gun ownership restrictions, ultimately creating a precedent that makes it easier to obtain a firearm. These two decisions underscore the antithetical approach often taken by conservatives to protecting life. Public health data shows that those states with inconsistent approaches (read - anti-reproductive health access AND lax gun laws) create an environment incompatible with the goal to protect life.
States with the strictest abortion laws see higher rates of maternal mortality and worse health outcomes than states that support and fund the spectrum of reproductive health care. Abortion bans in these states are often paired with fewer family planning clinics, limited access to birth control, and higher rates of uninsured individuals capable of reproduction. Those same states that have enacted strict abortion laws to “protect fetal life” have simultaneously loosened gun ownership restrictions. Since 2022, these states have seen gun deaths exceeding the national average. Often, these states see firearms as the leading cause of death in children and adolescents.
The decisions made by both the Supreme Court and state policymakers are notably inconsistent. Contested science is used to justify restrictions on reproductive health access while simultaneously ignoring strong public health data that clearly oppose lax gun laws. Conservative states are happy to use the argument that public safety and preservation of life justify strict limits on reproductive health, while completely ignoring those same concerns in relation to firearm regulations. Furthermore, the views of governmental intervention diverge greatly in the context of reproductive health and gun laws. For the former, extensive governmental intervention is necessary to “protect life.” However, in the latter case, individual liberties take precedence over public safety. The selective application of government authority calls into question policymakers' intent.
One thing is absolutely certain: the combination of “pro-life” abortion and reproductive health restrictions, paired with lax firearm regulations, disproportionately harms already underserved communities by compounding higher maternal mortality rates with increased instances of gun-related violence and death. By simultaneously restricting reproductive health access and loosening firearm regulations, policymakers have actually worsened public safety. The selective application of government authority and regulation calls into question the genuine intent behind these policies and underscores the need for consistent, evidence-based approaches to public health and safety.
Source: Right to Life, Right to Arms
