Statement by the President on the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[Content Note: War on agency. NB: Not only women need access to abortion.]

---

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 22, 2015

Statement by the President on the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Forty-two years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that protects a woman's freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health, and reaffirms a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters.

I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today. The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families, and their doctors. I am also deeply committed to continuing our work to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, promote adoptions, and minimize the need for abortion.

Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons.

###

---

Welp.

I know, I know—I'm the most ungrateful ingrate in all of Ungratefulville if I don't love this statement and thank our President for being such a stellar feminist ally.

But here's the thing: While I am indeed very appreciative that our President affirms abortion as a constitutional right and has promised to veto [pdf] HR 7, I do not appreciate that, on a day marking the passage of Roe v. Wade, the President's statement includes tired language that implies abortion decisions should be made in consultation with anyone other than the abortion-seeker.

Of course many abortion-seeking people make abortion decisions with the input of partners, friends, doctors. But many abortion-seeking people don't, for a whole host of reasons (like the pregnancy being the result of rape, or not having access to a regular doctor).

There's nothing wrong—and, frankly, there is everything right—with saying "The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made my women." Full-stop.

(Or, even better, now that the President has acknowledged that trans people exist: "Best made by pregnant people.")

I am also deeply unthrilled with this: "I am also deeply committed to continuing our work to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, promote adoptions, and minimize the need for abortion."

The continual emphasis, even by pro-choice legislators and leaders, on "minimizing the need for abortion" as a worthy objective contributes to the stigma of abortion.

Because if all you mean is that you will continue to support access to contraception, access to healthcare, childcare services, and livable wages, then say that. Don't say "minimize the need for abortion," as if the existence of abortion itself is a problem.

Whatever number of people need abortions, that's the need for abortion. And what matters is whether the people who need abortion have access to it.

Finally: "May we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons." How about instead let's all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that women have the rights, freedoms, and opportunities they deserve as human beings. No "daughters" and no comparison to men necessary.

This language matters. The language that speaks about women as autonomous, rights-bearing human beings empowered to make their own decisions without shame or judgment matters. On every day. And especially this day.