OPINIONS, MORALITY, AND MEDICAL REALITY: WHY I’M A VOTING “YES” ON MISSOURI AMENDMENT 3
Reader warning: This piece includes language regarding abortion, and sexual assault.
As a man I am uniquely unqualified to talk about Women’s reproductive health. Along with being a man, I am not a doctor and have very little formal education regarding human reproduction. In fact, in high school I was able to choose between biology and physical science (physics light) and I took physical science. Instead of human anatomy I took an astronomy class. You want to know about planetary movement via ellipse? I’ve got you covered. But when it comes to the science behind female reproductive matters, I am - to quote Missouri Congressman Jason Smith “not an expert” on the topic.
Being not an expert on the topic, however, doesn’t stop plenty of folks, men and women alike, from taking strong stances on the topic of abortion. In Missouri, where I live with my wife (who is not a medical professional either but is a mother of 3 and seems to know a bit more about her own health needs than I do) we have Amendment 3 on the November ballot.
Amendment 3 (MO3) asks voters in Missouri whether or not we should amend our State Constitution to allow for reproductive care to be legal, with regulation, in the State. You can read the actual text on the Secretary of State’s website.
THE BASIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST
Folks arguing against MO3 have taken two main paths. First, the most common and predictable, is the purely moral argument. That abortion is wrong, period. This is typically through a religious stance. Second, is that the language of the proposed amendment allows for various other medical procedures including gender affirming care, and that somehow children will be given secret transition surgery without parental consent. Most far-fetched is that somehow these secret surgeries will be happening at school.
The second argument, the one about the broad language and secret surgeries, is flat out ridiculous. It is, at best, ill-informed and at worst an intentionally misleading lie. It’s so clearly incorrect that I have nothing more to say on it other than to say this: Anyone making that argument is verifiably and demonstrably wrong.
The first, the moral argument, reveals an issue that is glossed over. It is not an actual argument about abortion, what it is, what it means, or when it occurs, but rather a desire to have state law mirror religious belief. The most obvious and simple retort here is that our system is intentionally designed to avoid just that. Passing laws to enact religious doctrine is inherently unconstitutional, and it has been.
More importantly, the moral argument is often centered around the concept that “abortion” means killing - and ignores the reality of what “abortion” actually includes.
PERSONAL EDUCATION POST DOBBS DECISION
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobb’s case, overturning the Roe case and returning the question of abortion’s legality to the States, I would have told you that while I supported a woman’s right to choose, I thought all abortion was a tragedy. I was a fairly standard “pro-choice, but” kind of voter in that way, and it is a position that a lot of folks shared.
After Dobbs, however, I learned. I educated myself on the medical procedures that fall into “abortion” and I listened to the folks who could best educate me on the topic. I listened to doctors. I listened to WOMEN.
Before Dobbs I couldn’t have told what a “D&C” or “D&E” procedure was, or why they were used, or when they were needed. Now, I know.
You can read the actual stats on abortion in the United States including the data from the CDC which shows when in the gestational stage most abortive procedures take place.
What I learned left me with two conclusions:
- I knew even less than I thought about abortion.
- I shouldn’t be making the decision about these medical issues.
I mentioned above I’m a father to three, yet even after experiencing the births of my own children I was still woefully out of touch with reality.
CHOICE ALLOWS HEALTH CARE
What I know, now, is that “abortion” is a single word with a broad medical meaning. What I know now, is that “abortion” is not what I was led to believe through my church or moral instruction on the topic.
Pew Research provides the following information:
“The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.
The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.”
That same research reveals that roughly 99% of all abortion procedures, of any kind, occur prior to the third trimester. In fact, there are only a handful of states where such a procedure could even be obtained and most places where abortion is legal (which for now does NOT include MIssouri) have specific viability language. In addition, the allegations of “post birth” abortion is, to put it politely, utter nonsense.
It is a fiction that is sensationalized and sold because there is simply no one in favor of murdering an infant. It’s an abhorrent lie meant to inflame the passions of the person hearing it and as a result the word “abortion” is used to mean something that it simply isn’t. It’s a rhetorical trick, an illusion, designed to mislead you.
MISSOURI’S LANGUAGE
The actual language proposed in Missouri specifically allows for regulation after “Fetal Viability” as well, so claims that MO3 will create some wild scenario where women who are 9 months pregnant are going to suddenly be lining up to have “late term” abortions is not only ridiculous and statistically false, it’s a flat out lie based on the actual language, seen here directly from the ballot language itself:
WORST CASES ARE HARD TO DISCUSS
I will close with this unfortunate reality. There are women, girls, mothers and sisters and daughters, who are or will be in residential care. There are real stories of rape of women in care facilities. I am the father of a daughter who cannot speak without assistance, who cannot fight off a would-be attacker, but who could be a victim of just such an attack. Is it likely? No, it isn’t. But it is far more real in terms of risk than the dark fantasy of infanticide peddled by anti- abortion groups.
I’m voting YES on MO3 for basic freedom, for the protection of my own daughters, for my wife’s access to her healthcare, and for every other person in MIssouri who might need a medical procedure that I’m not qualified to fully understand. I’m voting YES on MO3 because when it comes to medical decisions and reproductive care the only people with input should be those in the exam room. I’m voting YES on MO3 because legality and morality are not the same things and because it's not my place to decide what is right or wrong for another person’s life. I’m voting YES on MO3 because I trust women to make their own decisions. I’m voting YES on MO3 because the arguments being made are false.
Finally, I’m voting YES on MO3 because I’m choosing to mind my own damn business.
You can too, and it’s so easy to do. All you do is use the marker to fill in the bubble next to “Yes” on the ballot.”
