First, let’s look at some statistics.  United States pregnancy rates declined between 2010 and 2019.  They continue to decline in this current decade.  It has been a trend at least since 1991 according to the CDC.   Below are statistics provided by the CDC for the decade mentioned.  They are from the site: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/20230412.htm.

Report findings: The total estimated number of pregnancies declined by 9% from 6,069,000 pregnancies in 2010 to 5,507,000 in 2019.

The overall pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women aged 15–44) was 97.3 in 2010 and 85.6 in 2019, a 12% decline.

Unintended pregnancy rates declined by 15%, from 42.1 (per 1,000 women aged 15–44) in 2010 to 35.7 in 2019.

From 2010–2019, the percentage of pregnancies ending in live birth and of those ending in loss each increased 3%, while pregnancies ending in abortion declined 17%.

Overall pregnancy rates and unintended pregnancy rates for teens ages 15-19 declined by more than half (52%) from 2010–2019.

Unintended pregnancy rates declined from 2010 to 2019 by 23% among Hispanic women, 17% among non-Hispanic women of races other than Black or White, 12% among Black, non-Hispanic women, and 11% among White, non-Hispanic women.

I found this information as I was trying to determine why so many politicians and Supreme Court judges were against Roe vs. Wade and why it was overturned.  Also, why did it take so many conservative judges to get it overturned?  There has been a push towards the elimination of Roe vs. Wade for many years, but it was not overturned until the scales were dramatically tipped in that court.

I realize that most religious people have been against this ruling for many years and I understand why.  It is obvious, however, that the citizens that were and are for Roe vs. Wade far outweigh those that are not.  Those that are for it, I believe, have many reasons why.  Many states that decided to change their own laws because of this ruling have changed the fundamental rights of women.  Some states have eliminated the right of women to do anything to prevent them having a baby, having a healthy baby, and even the right to live so they may have a healthy baby.  Can the latter be seen as a matter of an eye for an eye, i.e. mother’s life for the baby’s, even if the baby may be born unhealthy?

So I looked at these statistics and wondered if there was a reason for this negativity against Roe vs. Wade that may be found in them.  When you look at them overall, there may be just that.  Of course, this is only my opinion and you, the reader, may have another, but it is worth pondering over.  Could the birth rate, continuing to decline, be a cause of the ruling?  Maybe some are worried that a declining birth rate is bad for the country?  Would the decline offset the mix of ethnicity in this country?  Maybe it’s just better to have a rising birth rate.

Yet, if this is the answer to all the turmoil, wouldn’t we then be considering laws that are opposite to but indeed similar to China’s former laws?  They made laws to prevent women from having too many babies and, in addition, too many of a particular gender.  Here, aren’t we making laws to force women to have babies?  I really don’t believe this but why then are they making these laws.  It can’t be because they want to control women or make sure they stay home and out of the work force?  And it can’t be a religious issue because religion should stay out of politics, right?

If it’s not a control issue or one of worry over declining birth rates, or even one of religious belief, then what is it?  That is a question to which each of us has to make a decision.  Not making a decision is actually making one which leaves us the status quo.  Right now, that’s not going well in my viewpoint.

So, if we decide to leave everything as is, what do we need to do and what else needs happen?  We need to get ourselves and the government involved in taking care of the babies after they are born.  Make sure they have food, a good home, health, and education.  Of course, this is something we should have already done since so many children are starving today or living on the streets.  We do try to feed them in school, but even these laws are sometimes challenged as handouts.  Of course, all of it is trying to make sure children have nourishment.

We also try to help families by giving them extra money to buy food.  This, again, is looked at as a handout by some.  Maybe this is true since some do try to take advantage of our programs, but should we eliminate these programs because of this?  Should we not try to fix these programs instead?  Shouldn’t we try to help those children we are imposing these conditions on?  Maybe even provide institutional help for those babies that need it?  Would we help those families that have lost mothers due to these imposed conditions?

It looks to me like by forcing laws impinging on our rights, government is getting bigger, not smaller.  Are we not looking for a government that helps its citizens with those situations that affect us all?  Are we not against government that removes our individual freedoms?  People want to call the first scenario a socialist activity, but is it really?  Can we each build our own road, eliminate, on our own, companies that pollute, provide our own fire department, our own police force?  Can we build our own safe cars, invest our money and keep it personally safe, fly in our own safe air space?  These are federal, state, and local government duties we have asked them to do.  These are not for me or you but for us.

In the second scenario, do we not see these types of restrictions as dictatorial, autocratic, or even tyrannical?  Do we want to give in to any of these?  Would we be naive not to think that the next step in this process is the elimination of all birth control methods?

In my next article we’ll discuss a man’s position with these ever-changing rules and laws.