I’ve been very worried about the far-right religious demagogue and pedophile Roy Moore winning Alabama. He and his Democratic opposition, Doug Jones, have been running neck and neck, and even after 9 women spoke up about Moore molesting them (in one case the woman was 14 years old when she was assaulted) and other complaints that Moore stalked teenagers at the mall, Roy Moore still has a better than good chance of winning in his state. The reason he may still win, even though he is a horrible human being who preys on children, is because of where Roy Moore stands on abortion.
Even though I don’t live in Alabama (thank God), I’m worried about Moore winning because that will mean he’ll be in the Senate, and have greater influence and power. We do not need religious extremists and unrepentant sexual predators (please don’t bring up Al Franken, because at least he apologized and took responsibility for his actions) like Moore in the US Senate or anywhere close to the federal government.
So I had a kind of brainstorm this morning. Because so many Alabamans care so much about abortion, and vote on that one issue (even over homosexuality), Doug Jones needs to run on the abortion issue, and it doesn’t matter that he happens to be pro-choice. He can make an excellent case why he’d be the better pro-life candidate (and why the Democratic Party is also the more pro-life party at the end of the day).
As it stands now, religious Alabamans will vote for Roy Moore because they believe Doug Jones is soft on abortion and therefore against God. It doesn’t matter to them that Moore is himself an immoral man who preys on children and blasphemes Jesus when he justifies his molestation of a 14 year old by saying that Mary was only 14 when she was impregnated by Joseph (whatever happened to their belief in the Virgin Birth?). No, they will still vote for Moore because of his anti-choice stance.
But here’s something to ponder. It is a statistical fact that 50% — HALF! — of all births in America are paid for by Medicaid, which also covers children’s healthcare after they are born. That’s a lot of babies that might have been aborted without Medicaid (and other support programs for mothers and their children). Republicans like Roy Moore want to cut Medicaid or eliminate it altogether, as well as cut or eliminate other services that make it possible for poor women to have and raise their children.
If a poor woman loses or cannot access Medicaid, food stamps, and other services that help her and her unborn baby, both during pregnancy and after, do you think she is going to have the baby anyway without medical and other support? No! She is most likely going to choose abortion. Most abortions in the US are done for financial reasons. Most women having abortions aren’t married middle or upper class women — they’re usually poor or very young women who have no health coverage and no support system in which they can raise their child. If you refuse her Medicaid and support services, is she just going to say, “Hey, well, ok, I guess I’ll just give birth at home in my bathtub!” Of course not. This isn’t 1700.
Sure, there are a few women who can afford a child and have abortions because they just don’t want another child (or any at all), but they are in the minority. Even if abortion was outlawed, rich women would “take a trip to Europe” just like they did in the 1950s.
Facing an unplanned pregnancy is scary enough as it is. If you have no money to afford prenatal care, labor and delivery, and medical care for the baby, and there is no support system that can help you, that’s even more terrifying. Again, half of all births are funded by Medicaid. So if that is taken away or cut, most if not all of those poor women are NOT going to decide to have their babies in the bathtub. It’s a lot easier to come up with $600 or $800 or so for an abortion than find the money for hospital care. Even the poorest woman can usually get that kind of money in a pinch, even if she has to borrow it or use a payday lender.
Abortion rates have ALWAYS gone up during GOP administrations, when services like food stamps, Medicaid and family planning are cut. Most women, when faced with other alternatives to abortion and given support, will choose to have their baby. Cut off their support system and access to healthcare, more abortions. It makes perfect sense.
Even though most Democrats are “pro-choice,” there are fewer abortions under Democratic administrations when access to family planning and healthcare and other services are more available. This has been proven statistically. Railing on about abortion being evil and then offering no alternatives to a desperate pregnant woman, especially if she’s poor, does absolutely nothing except shame and traumatize her.
Even if abortion were outlawed, desperate pregnant women who can’t afford a sudden “European vacation” would go to back alley butchers just like they did in the 1950s. Illegal abortionists would pop up like mushrooms after a storm. Women who are desperate are still going to get abortions even if they’re illegal, if no other support is given.
I really think if Doug Jones runs on this platform, and stresses the fact that abortions increase under GOP policies and decrease under Democratic policies, I think he could win over some if not most of the pro-life Christians. Let’s face it. Doug Jones seems like a good man and a nice person and unlike Roy Moore, I believe he actually cares about the people of Alabama, and he cares about women and children. If pro-life Christians, many who vote on the abortion issue alone, could realize that Jones is actually the much more pro-life candidate at the end of the day, I definitely think they would vote for him over an extremist, dishonest sexual predator like Roy Moore.
I’m actually going to send the link to this article to Doug Jones and urge him to address this issue in his campaign, because I think he’d win. It’s important he wins so we don’t get someone like Roy Moore in the Senate.