This month, the Supreme Court of the United States seems poised to overturn Roe versus Wade, the historic ruling that guarantees abortion rights in all fifty states, in its Dobbs versus Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. In early May, a draft of the Dobbs opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked with a majority of the Court voting to overturn Roe. An ongoing investigation has yet to determine who the leaker is. While the country awaits the Dobbs decision and its historic impact, no matter how the Court rules, vitriol from the left has ramped up against the pro-life stance. Recent leftist arguments have a particular focus on life in a post-Roe world. Here are three of the most common arguments and the facts to combat them.

  1. “Overturning Roe v. Wade will ban abortion.”

Of course, the number one argument from the pro-choice crowd is that overturning Roe v. Wade will strip women across the country of their “reproductive health care.” Leftists say Roe v. Wade protects a woman’s constitutional right to privacy which is not subject to state discretion. This argument ignores another crucial Supreme Court decision in 1992 known as Planned Parenthood versus Casey. In fact, the Casey ruling amended Roe v. Wade such that any decision the Court passes regarding abortion today would more directly alter Casey, not Roe.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a “trimester framework,” which permitted states to regulate abortion based on the different trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. During the first trimester, the decision to have an abortion was solely up to the woman; in the second trimester, states could restrict but not ban abortion; in the third trimester, states could restrict or outlaw abortion altogether. Planned Parenthood v. Casey got rid of the trimester framework and instead created the concept of “viability” regulations. Thus, if a state decided a fetus was viable at any point during the first trimester, it could restrict abortion as long as it did not impose “undue burden” on the mother. The Casey decision dealt with other issues surrounding abortion such as notification of the spouse, parental consent for minors, a 24-hour waiting period, and information disclosure.

Ultimately, Casey expanded states’ rights regarding abortion. This is why today, 16 states and the District of Columbia have codified laws protecting abortion; 22 states have “trigger” laws that would ban abortion altogether if Roe is overturned, and others have varying abortion restrictions. The problem is Supreme Court precedent still prohibits abortion bans prior to viability. However, there is no established medical consensus for viability. For example, a Slate magazine commentator once declared all fetuses born at 21-23 weeks “fatal,” yet twenty-one percent of premature babies born at this gestation survive. Court precedent restricting pro-life laws also cannot account for state interest in fetal pain, which pro-life advocates argue is a clear sign of human life.

Roe v. Wade is flawed because it halts state legislation. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted Roe stands in opposition to “momentum on the side of change,” whether state advocates want greater abortion access or restrictions on abortion. If the Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe as the Dobbs v. Jackson leak indicates, individual states will have greater – not less – jurisdiction over abortion. There will be a patchwork of standards: some states will ban abortion while others will have the opportunity to expand abortion if Roe is overturned. Overturning Roe v. Wade will change the way pro-life advocates lobby for change but it will not create a federal ban on abortion.

  1. “Pro-life is a lie, you don’t care if people die.”

This is a catchy slogan that fits well on a yard sign but has no bearing on reality. It is of the utmost to remember that pro-life laws are on the side of women’s health.

Since Roe was decided almost fifty years ago, it has been a common pro-choice argument that if the right to abortion is not absolute, thousands of women will die from risky, back-alley “coat-hanger” abortions. NARAL founder and former abortionist Bernard Nathanson admitted the pro-abortion movement fabricated statistics of illegal abortions in his 1979 book, Aborting America. Mary Calderone, a former medical director for Planned Parenthood, has also stated that in 1957, “there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind” – not the tens of thousands that the pro-choice radicals decry.

The claim that coat-hanger abortions will cause widespread fatality rates if abortion is illegal is patently false. But in a horrifying turn of irony, the pro-choice movement is no longer against “DIY abortions” as they once were. On the website of the 2021 Women’s March, a pro-abortion feminist rally in Washington D.C., the organization advised marchers not to bring “coat-hanger imagery” on signs. The website stated, “we do not want to accidentally reinforce the right-wing talking points that self-managed abortions are dangerous, scary and harmful.” This change in rhetoric is the result of support for chemical abortions.

If anything poses a danger to women’s lives, it is abortion. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on the abortion pill. The abortion pill, also known as mifepristone or RU-486, can be taken for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Drug-induced abortion usually comes in two doses: the first pill (mifepristone) stops the production of progesterone to cause fetal death; the second pill (misoprostol) causes contractions to expel the unborn baby. The FDA now allows abortion pills to be obtained through the mail without the consultation of a doctor. Yet according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, medical abortion is four times deadlier than surgical abortion. This is primarily because women with ectopic pregnancies (where a fertilized egg develops outside of the uterus) experience infection, hemorrhage, and in many cases die if they take an abortion pill without consulting their doctor.

Thankfully, abortion reversal pills can be taken after the first dose of mifepristone, and sometimes after the second dose. The Abortion Pill Rescue Network connects women to an emergency hotline. Safe and immediate responses are the pro-life advocate’s greatest testimony. As one woman who obtained an abortion reversal pill noted, “Nobody’s telling you what you did was wrong…they will help you.” The pro-life movement cares for medical treatments and the health and safety of both mother and child. 

Pro-abortion media outlets equate ectopic pregnancies and other complications with elective abortion but this is a false narrative. Elective abortions are not medically necessary. As neonatologist Kendra Kolb points out, complications when the mother’s life is in jeopardy usually occurs among women with high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. In these cases, a preterm delivery is much safer than an elective abortion. Dr. Kolb says, “An emergency C-section can be completed in less than an hour, while an abortion after 24 weeks, when the most common life-threatening complications occur, takes 2-3 days to complete due to the necessary dilation process.”

Abortion restrictions frequently allow exceptions for pregnancy complications to save the life of the mother. Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah are all examples of states with extremely pro-life laws that allow exceptions for saving the life of a mother.

Pro-choice advocates say abortion is completely safe and anything less than absolute abortion rights is a health threat. Yet abortion-rights laws consistently skew medical data. Only 28 states require postabortion complication reports. Even the Guttmacher Institute notes three states do not require any basic data on “abortion incidence and patient characteristics” to be reported to the CDC. The Guttmacher Institute further claims that pro-life advocates have “seized on abortion reporting requirements” to subvert public health, yet four states (Maryland, California, New Hampshire, and New Jersey) and the District of Columbia do not require reporting and are controlled by Democrats.

One reason for the discrepancy in abortion reporting is that different states ask abortion providers and the women who receive them different questions. For example, Oklahoma requires reporting on the reason for abortion while others do not. Pro-choice opponents say this type of question attempts to politicize abortion, but asking the question does not politicize other elective operations. Those obtaining a bariatric or weight loss surgery in the United States are required to attend presurgical appointments with a psychiatrist. If such a requirement for any other type of elective operation that involves a woman’s private health concerns and her doctor is not unreasonable, neither should requirements for abortion reporting.

The Guttmacher Institute reaches out to abortion clinics individually to obtain statistics while state-mandated reports to the CDC vary. As a result, numbers on abortion each year from the CDC are about 70% of the numbers Guttmacher obtains. The fact is, we don’t know how many abortions occur in America. Sadly, the pro-abortion faction in America is more concerned with protecting the industry than it is with providing accurate statistics on postabortion complications.

  1. “Pro-life people don’t do enough for the children in foster care now.”

Perhaps one of the most red-herring arguments the left makes for pro-choice is that you can’t be pro-life until you are ready to personally adopt every single unwanted child who is not aborted. This is a red herring from the crucial fact at hand because being unwanted by one’s parents does not negate the sanctity of human life. Nor does poverty or a difficult childhood preclude the right to life. In fact, suggesting that poverty, abuse, or unwanted pregnancy is reason to exterminate a child before their life has even begun is rooted in a history of racism and eugenics.

Not only is this argument a red herring, but it is also false. Pew Research indicates that 63% of Evangelical Christians are pro-life. Christians are also more than twice as likely to adopt as the general population.

Many know that there are more families waiting to adopt than there are children in the adoption system. Each year, 140,000 children are adopted and 100,000 children are in foster care eligible for adoption. Compare this to the nearly 560,000 couples and individuals each year seeking to adopt a child. Adoption reform is key, and pro-life advocates and politicians are getting ahead in this area. Last year in Georgia, Governor Kemp rolled out multiple adoption and foster care reform bills, making it easier for people to adopt. Legislation includes increasing adoption tax credits, lowering the legal age to adopt, and providing more resources to juvenile courts. Similar legislation has also been passed recently in pro-life red states Alabama and Texas.

The pro-life movement has been preparing for a post-Roe world for decades. In fact, pro-lifers continue to prepare for a time in which abortion is not only unlawful, it is unthinkable. One way this has been achieved since Roe v. Wade is through crisis pregnancy centers. As of 2015, these pro-life pregnancy centers outnumber Planned Parenthoods by 3:1. Pregnancy centers offer free and confidential support to anyone facing an unplanned pregnancy. Support usually includes free ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby formula and other supplies. Many even offer post-abortive counseling. 

There are many beautiful stories through adoption and foster care, but it is no one’s first wish for women or their children. Before Roe in 1973, roughly nine percent of unmarried pregnant women gave their babies up for adoption. By 2002, that number dropped to one percent, while abortions rose to about 1 million per year. Pro-lifers are often accused of romanticizing adoption as an alternative to abortion on the one hand while also being told we’re not doing enough. The fact is, we do not have to choose between mothers and their babies. In a post-Roe America, we can love them both.