We are part of The Trust Project.
The Supreme Court appears to be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and there is much concern over the impact this wold have on women. There is even talk of banning contraception, which would lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions, legal or otherwise. Ladies, next thing, they'll be coming for your shoes. (Keep them barefoot and pregnant.)
All this will inflate the welfare rolls and increase the burden on taxpayers. But the implications of government controlling the bodies of the citizens goes much further. A state that can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term can also make vasectomies mandatory, (which would definitely lower the number of abortions.) That state could also mandate vaccinations. Mandate a blood donation every six months. Implant RFID chips so the government can track your activities. Require everyone to submit a DNA sample to build up a national database.
That would make it possible to find a match for a patient on dialysis, and force someone to donate a kidney, regardless of the donor's concern for health and quality of life. But at least the donor would not be required to care for and financially support the recipient for the next 18 years.
There is also fear that same sex marriage may be reversed. Perhaps we should question why certain people have such a creepy obsession with other people's reproductive systems and sex life. And why men are so insecure that they need to control the most personal aspects of a woman's life.
Just remember: one party wants to reduce the number of abortions while the other just wants them to be illegal and unsafe. Your choice is between higher taxes and loss of body autonomy or comprehensive sex education and taxpayer-funded contraception.
ADVERTISEMENT
Richard Peterson lives in Moorhead.
This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.
