aggressivelyarticulate:

washingtonpoststyle:

Consider Roe v. Wade, which turned 39 yesterday, in nine charts.

Chart via the Guttmacher Institute

So, this is a thing that makes me indescribably angry:

“How abortion restrictions effect abortion rates isn’t completely clear. States with fewer abortion restrictions tended to have higher abortion rates, in part because they include women travelling from out-of-state to terminate a pregnancy. A recent study from the Guttmacher Institute, however, questions the role of restrictions. It found that countries with more liberal abortion laws tend to have lower rates of abortion—perhaps due to factors like greater access to contraception. That research, slated to be published in a forthcoming issue of Lancet, also found countries with more abortion restrictions to have higher rates of abortion-related-deaths.”
Source: Guttmacher Institute

You don’t have to agree with abortion. You don’t even have to like it—I certainly don’t, and I’m pro-choice. But time and time again it has been shown that not having reasonable and legal access to abortion and preventative methods is far more harmful than it is helpful. I understand the moral and religious arguments, I honestly do, and I fully respect your right to stand by them. But I do not believe that abortion is an evil thing; I do not believe it is murder. And I absolutely, completely, 100% believe that any woman who is in the position of needing an abortion would probably rather be somewhere, anywhere else.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need abortion. Every child would be wanted, and every mother or family would be in the position to provide and care for it. Unfortunately, that’s not our reality. Start providing better care for the tens of thousands of kids in our country’s foster system, and then maybe we can talk.