Part of what's wrong with Cruz's take here - only part of it - is also part of what's wrong with the conservative covid response, which is the idea that if someone doesn't die, then it wasn't life threatening.
People in the US do die in childbirth (disproportionately affecting people of color, Black especially) but Cruz and his defenders are happy to compare those numbers to the total population/overall death rate and say it's "rare".
Imagine, for argument, that they're right.
Imagine, for argument, that they're right.
Even if we imagine that the actual US numbers are the best they could be, best in the world (they're not)... that wouldn't prove pregnancy is not a dangerous, life-threatening condition.
It would only show that we have the means to deal with the threat.
It would only show that we have the means to deal with the threat.
That doesn't mean the people who go through it weren't in danger. It doesn't mean they won't have been traumatized by it. It doesn't mean they won't suffer permanent, irreparable physical harm from it. It doesn't mean, under our system, it won't ruin them financially.
Even if our medical system had enough capacity to shepherd every person with this condition (true of covid and pregnancy) to the other side of it alive... each time it does so in a case that could have been prevented, that's people, time, and resources not going to other threats.
Even if we could use modern medical technology and heroic efforts to save the lives of every single person with a problematic pregnancy and every single person with full-blown covid... we still shouldn't have to. We're still worse off for not practicing prevention, where we can.
Now, even if we had perfect birth control and also abortion available without exceptions, there would still be difficult and dangerous pregnancies because people who want to have babies would still be getting pregnant on purpose.
But aren't we better off if those expensive technologies and heroic efforts that can be employed to save a life could be reserved for those cases where they're actually unavoidably needed?
Nobody's reason for using birth control or abortion is invalid but among the reasons people seek an abortion is they know some of the risk factors they personally have for pregnancy and have decided against it, because of the likelihood it would kill them.
When people with known risk factors can't get abortions or "morning after" pills, we are in the aggregate increasing the strain on resources, human and otherwise, that are used to keep our death rates as low as they are.
(Which is not low at all, relative to national wealth.)
(Which is not low at all, relative to national wealth.)
People with those risk factors should be able to choose to get pregnant, of course. That's what PRO-CHOICE means. And if people who didn't want to be pregnant could abort their pregnancies freely, there would be that much more ability for people to choose pregnancy!
Abortion on demand doesn't just mean people who don't want to be pregnant don't have to be. It increases the ability of people who want to be pregnant to do so with a greater measure of safety.
Pro-choice means pro-choice.
"Pro-life" means increasing the danger of death in getting pregnant even for people who want to be pregnant.
"Pro-life" means increasing the danger of death in getting pregnant even for people who want to be pregnant.
