ShareThis Page
Tara Murtha & Susan Frietsche: Nothing ‘pro-life’ about overturning Roe v. Wade |
Featured Commentary

Tara Murtha & Susan Frietsche: Nothing ‘pro-life’ about overturning Roe v. Wade

Tara Murtha And Susan Frietsche
| Saturday, January 12, 2019 7:00 p.m

Next week is the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case that affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion.

Every year around this time, people who call themselves “pro-life” cite statistics related to the number of abortions in the United States since 1973 while calling to overturn Roe.

Abortion is indeed a common experience. One in four U.S. women will have an abortion by the time she is 45.

Of course, women don’t have abortions because of a decades- old court case. American women had abortions before Roe. We know this from the testimony of women who lived through those times and the death certificates for women who didn’t. In 1965, 17 percent of all pregnancy- related deaths were related to illegal abortion.

We also know that women living in places where abortion is criminalized have abortions at roughly the same rate as countries where it is legal (a recent study suggests abortion is in fact more common where it is criminalized).

Criminalizing abortion doesn’t lower the abortion rate; however, it significantly raises the maternal mortality rate. Approximately 13 percent of global maternal mortality is due to unsafe abortion in places where it’s criminalized or inaccessible.

Overturning Roe would enable states to criminalize abortion, which hurts and kills women. What’s so “pro-life” about that?

Meanwhile, while working to bring the big case they believe will overturn Roe, pro-life lawmakers have passed hundreds of state-level restrictions designed to reserve access to safe, legal abortion care for the relatively rich.

In part as a result of that strategy, in Pennsylvania, only 17 freestanding health facilities provide abortion care, and 90 percent of Pennsylvania counties lack an abortion provider. That means many Pennsylvanians — especially rural women — struggle to come up with the means to travel hundreds of miles to obtain safe abortion care.

Not everyone can do it. The vast majority of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. And so some low-income women are circumstantially coerced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, give birth against their will and face related medical risks.

The risk is significant: The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country. Here in Pennsylvania, the same “pro-life” lawmakers obsessed with passing abortion restrictions have allowed the maternal mortality rate to double since 1994. Like everywhere else, maternal and infant mortality rates are much higher for black women and infants than their white counterparts.

We understand some people believe only the relatively rich deserve access to the full spectrum of safe, legal reproductive health care, and that a low-income woman who experiences an unplanned, unwanted or complicated pregnancy should be forced to carry that pregnancy against her will. We know the same “pro-life” advocates who cite statistics indicating they know abortion is a common experience work to overturn Roe because they believe risking injury and death should simply be the cost low-income women pay for seeking an abortion.

We just think it’s time to stop pretending there is anything “pro-life” about that.

Tara Murtha is director of communications
for the Women’s Law Project (, a public interest legal organization devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls in Pennsylvania and beyond. Susan Frietsche is senior staff attorney there.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.