author: annie trussler | op-ed editor
“I detest the phrase “pro-life,” whereas the more accurate phrase would be “anti-choice” or “anti-uterus,” but I digress.”
Recently, one of the most prolific figures in feminist activism has passed into the great beyond. Norma McCorvey, one of the courageous feminist few in history, at the age of 69, has decided to depart from this hellish existence that is Planet Earth 2017 (frankly, I can’t blame her); I can’t say I was surprised when I found less-than-favourable remarks in comment sections toward her passing, but I will admit that I was disheartened (did I really expect better?). This is not about a conflict of opinion, because the safety and mortality of women is not debatable subject material.
A motto I’ve functioned under for a number of years is that “you can never get rid of abortions. You can only get rid of safe abortions.” I could delve into an explanation as to how the outlawing of safe abortion will undoubtedly cost thousands of real, human lives, but I figure I’ll save that for another paragraph, or a future article. What matters here, mostly, is that the indomitable hypocrisy of the Right has made itself present once more.
I detest the phrase “pro-life,” whereas the more accurate phrase would be “anti-choice” or “anti-uterus,” but I digress. The “pro-life” movement seems only to protect the cellular and unconscious, whereas the actual safety and consent of a full-grown, living human being is thrown to the wind, as there’s surely no way anyone with a uterus could make choices for themselves. People with uteri are clearly dependent, semi-capable entities desperate to be dictated by stronger, more powerful, straight, white, male hands.
What McCorvey fought for was a definition beyond one so degrading and, frankly, embarrassing. McCorvey fought, and in many cases won, the right to her own body, and millions of other bodies subject to the vice grip of Republican legislation.
If you find joy in this woman’s death, I need you to take a long, long, long look as to what you think “pro-life” would mean. In order to be “pro-life,” one would, by necessity, need to support those living, not those in theory, not those only just conceived, only those existing solely as a collection of cells and unformed nerves. The loss of this life (a life decorated by feminist accomplishment and personal growth) should break your heart more than any abortion should. If her death brings you joy, and abortion brings you grief, there exists a desperate need to readjust priorities, and moreover, a perception of humanity.
Modern politicians stand to abolish “Roe V Wade” (to no one’s surprise), because it seems to be an unending debate that people with uteri deserve personhood, independence, and authority over the fully developed nerves and cells that they are comprised of. So long as a patriarchal system that benefits from the invalidation and dehumanization of anything other than the cisgender male, people will fight for the rights to their own personhood, to their futures, to their lives.
Rather than forcing a human being to resort to botched coat hanger operations (which still happen, and still lead to countless deaths), take a spare moment to re-evaluate just what “pro-life” means to you. I don’t expect you to change your stance (but, God, I hope you do), but at least, for the love of any and all deities, change your lacklustre, hollow defense. No one aside from the deeply Republican and Tomi Lahren buy it anymore.