Using Abortion to Get Votes Causes Heartbreak for Women

women, friends, meadow

I have been an independent my entire life because early on, it was clear to me that both major political parties’ platforms were well intended but flawed. This is due partly to the assumptions each party platform makes about the human condition.

It is also due to the interpretations individuals make based on their own experiences, understanding of issues, and often, political aspirations. The latter is of grave concern to me and is exemplified in government’s use of the abortion issue to dissuade women from voting for office-seekers from opposing political parties, especially in California.

California politicians know better than most that so many pro-choice women want a biological child but can’t have one for various reasons. By talking about abortion in a transactional way, lawmakers are being insensitive to voters who would give anything to have a child of their own.

What’s ironic is that California is a state that prides itself on being the global gold standard for reproductive assistance, to which millions of people come from all over the world for fertility treatment to help them build their families. As such, systematically arousing emotions to get votes—as is well documented by the press—appears especially cold and calloused. 

The Challenges of Conception for Working Women

Consider that millions of women have spent their life savings on fertility assistance. They have put their bodies through agonizing treatments and painful daily self-administered injections for numerous months and been dealt final blows of emotional torment when their efforts have not yielded success. Many have been through this ordeal nine, ten times over.  

It is not unusual for working women to endure this process for a decade or more while simultaneously trying to maintain their careers. Many working women spent their 20s and 30s chasing economic opportunity and social equality, only to be told later that they can’t have children because of their biological clocks.

In many cases their pain was compounded by guilt and shame for their inability to conceive. Some have lost their jobs because the treatments made them more ill than they intended, and others have struggled to restart their careers in the aftermath. Still, others refrain from talking about their struggles for fear of being stigmatized. 

Empowerment-Baiting Women is Not the Answer

So, forgive me that I take offense when politicians seemingly use women as pawns to get votes. Instead, they should be respectful and empathetic when talking about the abortion versus conception debate. They should be mindful that many pro-choice voters are empathetic to the suffering of women and families who want to conceive, many of whom would seriously consider adopting the would-be children who otherwise might have been discarded in various stages of fetal development.

To this end, a policy focus on matching the women who choose to abort (for reasons only they can understand and endure lifelong) with the families who want and are qualified to adopt–would be much more productive.

Further, many pro-choice women who respect the rights of others cannot fathom making the choice to abort when it comes to their own bodies. That’s because the issue is more complex than just a religious or freedom issue: Years ago, social psychologists found that innate foundations of care underpin voters’ moral intuitions, across the political spectrum but especially for those on the left of the spectrum.

Of course, women should have the ultimate say about their bodies. But they should command rather than demand respect. That begins with female leaders not asking men for their opinions, which legitimizes nonsensical conversation, like banning abortion even in the case of rape and incest. Politicians should address this issue with restraint, dignity, and warmth, rather than trolling some female voters while opening painful wounds for others. 

Noelle Borao is a social scientist whose research interfaces business and international security, typically but not exclusively in the space of innovation and IP. Her cross-disciplinary research spans 16 academic fields. She is a California co-chair of No Labels. Her views are her own.

This is a Contributor Post. Opinions expressed here are opinions of the Contributor. Influencive does not endorse or review brands mentioned; does not and cannot investigate relationships with brands, products, and people mentioned and is up to the Contributor to disclose. Contributors, amongst other accounts and articles may be professional fee-based.