So, who wants to kill some babies?

 The answer: No one.  

That was a mind blowing reality that was brought to me early in the relationship I am now, when back in about 2014, my partner and I were discussing the then active Roe V. Wade, the discussion and controversy that surrounds it.  As we were chatting, he stated, "Well, no one WANTS an abortion!" 

My jaw dropped, my brain exploded.  Wait, really? (It was very close to the moment I was talking to a guy at a bar one night, early days of my deconstruction, and mentioned the name of the church I attended.  "Calvary Chapel, ever heard of it?" I asked.  He shook his head no.  Man, I wish I was him, I thought.)

Back to the abortion and no one wanting one, really?!?  My mind was blown because those of us trapped in the mind control element of fundamentalism were taught a variety of such: that the world is completely wicked, no one loves God, all do want they want lewdly and without care for another, just sinning all day every day the whole live long day, and that, in fact, the world HATES Jesus and Jesus in you.  So, basically anything that you stand for in opposition, their teachings about what Jesus stood for (in their heads, not necessarily the reality of what Jesus stood for), is contrary to the world.  Armed with that in mind, it was believed that those who were Pro-Choice were not only pro-abortion but also anti-Jesus and Christian haters.  

So, yeah, that mindset is what you deal with when you come up against someone who opposes Roe V. Wade and other court cases of its like.  Due to the heavy influence of their church leadership and higher-ups, they are coming forth with an emotional insecure mindset not allowing them to think clearly or be able to communicate reasonably.  Right, I don't think that's accidental on the part of the fundie church leadership or lawmakers, no indeed I don't.  In that regard, I don't think its accidental that the lawmakers of the progressive left, so called, are using emotional rhetoric to steer up their constitutents and followers.  Emotional upset is a viable tool but is a weapon used both on all sides of a situation.  It can be used to enact change but also can become a stumbling block that builds walls between and interferes with forward movement. On both sides, mind you, both sides.

So, what if any is the reason for having legal and safe abortions?  My friends, I tell you, it's about choice and autonomy over one's own body.  The philosophic undertones of the Roe V. Wade and Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate will never be truly resolved.  Does life begin at conception or does it not?  But, the import of having laws on the books such as Roe V. Wade allows women, those with uteruses, and girls the freedom to decide for themselves what they need and want to do with their body no matter the situation.

In June of 1969, then twenty one year old Norma McCorvey discovered that she was pregnant with her third child.  Earlier that year, a woman named Sarah Weddington recruited lawyer, Linda Coffee, to assist her with abortion litigation.  Their first plantiffs were a married couple in which the woman had child bearing difficulties and thus wanted the right to terminate the pregnancy.  However, the fact that the woman was not pregnant at the time was of concern, Weddington thought it would be best to find a pregnant woman.  Thus, they were connected with Norma McCorvey.   As stated by McCorvey in 2003, her whiteness and low income status were beneficial in the legal fight of Weddington and Coffee.   In addition, McCorvey was uncertain whether she wanted to terminate, imbibing in illegal substances and alcohol to forget her troubles, and was finally convinced by Weddington who informed her that "it's just a piece of tissue, you just missed your period." 

In 1970, Coffee and Weddingtion filed "Roe V. Wade" on behalf of McCorvey using the pseudynym "Jane Roe" and "Does V. Wade" on behalf of the married couple.  They were up against the defendant, Henry Wade, representing the state of Texas.  On June 17, 1970, the three judges presiding over the case ruled in favor of Roe stating that the Texas law was unconstitutional in violation with the ninth amendment.  However, the court declined to file an injunction against the enforcement of the law, ruled against the married couple stating that they lacked standing, and thus Roe was not allowed to obtain an abortion.  In addition, Henry Wade, still continued to prosecute those who performed abortions. Some weeks previous to the resolution of the case, Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe, had given birth to a daughter which she gave up for adoption.

It was not until January 22, 1973, after a lengthy battle in the Supreme Court, the findings ruled in favor 7-2 for Roe V. Wade, holding that women have a fundamental right to choose and the Texas law was unconstitutional. 

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.

On June 24, 2022, The Supreme Court overruled Roe V. Wade on the grounds that the right to abortion was not deeply rooted in Nation's history or tradition nor continued a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868. Many argued against this ruling stating that other rights, such as contraception, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, also did not exist upon the ratification of the Due Process Clause in 1868. By this logic are these also unconstitutional? Therein, lies the threat of what the Supreme Court may be planning to roll out, as many believe now that Roe V. Wade has fallen, what will be next?

For more information on the history of Roe V. Wade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade