Forgetting Women’s Bodies in Pro-Life Messaging 

Pro-life messages often center on the humanity and dignity of the unborn. But what about the woman carrying that child? There is no reason we can’t love them both and help them both. The majority of those I know in the movement are deeply committed to doing that. Almost all pro-lifers believe a woman has equal dignity to the child she is carrying, and our language and services should reflect that.  

Yet we don’t always talk like we mean that. I hear a lot about fetal development, elections, the predatory abortion industry, unfair attacks on pregnancy centers, etc., but disturbingly little about the need for maternal care before, during, and after birth. The humanity of the baby absolutely deserves a place in public discourse. But overly emphasizing it puts the pro-life movement on defense instead of offense. If we don’t acknowledge the context in which that unborn life finds him or herself, namely a mother, then we are missing the point. I worry that baby-centered messaging and services aren’t resonating with women who are or may become pregnant unexpectedly, or with the mushy middle public who worries about her. In order to put the pro-life movement on the offense rather than the defense, we need to be thinking about the mother’s well-being, too. 

Furthermore, and this is hard to say, I think many (including me, at one point) are tempted to sympathize with the plight of the innocent child more than the needs of the woman who became pregnant unexpectedly (maybe even sinfully). This was indeed how I once felt; I joke that I got into the pro-life movement for the babies and stayed for the women. But really, we need to love them both, which means taking a good hard look at women’s tangible needs and being truly pro-life, not just anti-abortion. This isn’t just about being more rhetorically effective to win elections for pro-life candidates; it’s about deeply examining how we can support and uplift the vital work of the pro-life movement while also gently challenging our movement to be as comprehensively pro-life as it can be.  

Let’s examine two concrete examples of talking points that pit women and children against each other. To strengthen the pro-life movement, we need to take a hard look at when we are valuing the baby over the pregnant woman when we can, and should, value both.  

“It’s Not Your Body”: But It Is Her Body. 

As pro-lifers, we often explain “the body within your body is not your body.”  But the baby’s body is in her body and affects her body at a most fundamental and visceral level. And her body matters in this whole equation. Thus the “it’s not your body” paradigm fails because mom and baby are treated as enemies, as competing priorities, even on the pro-life side. Here, again, we are adopting a faulty paradigm in which only the baby’s body is worthy of consideration. We need to acknowledge that that baby’s body is, in fact, inside the mother’s body and it’s the mother’s body that is sustaining that life, the mother’s body that will be permanently altered for the rest of her life.  

A woman’s body is, in its very physicality, made to sustain another human. Instead of trying to convince women that the baby in their bodies is distinct from their own bodies, we can convince them of the unspeakable beauty and power in nurturing and sustaining another life.  

To separate mother and baby, even in our talking points, is to do what abortion does. We should advance a vision of maternal fetal interdependence and how what is good for one is good for the other. Artificially and intentionally interrupting the pregnancy isn’t just about the fact that abortion ends the life of the body inside her; it goes against her own body’s purpose and ability, and in a way that attacks womanhood itself. Abortion isn’t to protect women’s bodies—it goes against them. In this way, elective abortion is a form of self-harm. For example, SMART Women’s Healthcare explains that women who have abortions are at 81 percent higher mental health risks, and face the physical risk of pre-term birth in future pregnancy. Charlotte Lozier Institute reports ectopic pregnancy, hemorrhage, and infection risks with the rise of chemical abortion drugs. The large research volume Complications documents much more of the negative health impact on women caused by abortion.  

And in difficult pregnancies, in which a woman’s body is being taxed, harmed, or even threatened by pregnancy, we also need to be better prepared to have conversations about that. We need to be crystal-clear about how intervening when a mother’s life is at risk is both ethical and legal, and we need to be willing to have those conversations about when and how to draw ethical lines. We need to realize that some people have a different definition of abortion and get confused if we only say it’s “never medically necessary,” which depends on different definitions of abortion. We can save a mother’s life by intervening in a complex pregnancy. Sometimes, the child will die, even if that wasn’t the intent. But the ultimate goal should always be to love and care for both. 

Saving Souls, Babies, and Women’s Health 

Pro-life discourse often centers on evangelizing the woman seeking an abortion. This is a beautiful idea. I also want babies not to be aborted and for the woman to come to know Jesus. There are different takes on the strategy of how to do that, but I’m open to discussing those strategies, and often admire the work of groups using this kind messaging that share my desire for moms not to choose abortion and choose abundant life in Christ instead. But focusing solely on this is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, the woman’s body seems to be left out of this equation, both in practice and in our discourse.

Perhaps it’s implied that we need to care for the woman’s body, but why not explicitly inspire donors to that end? I not only want to help the woman’s body because it’s home to her baby and her soul, but because her body matters in and of itself—and abortion harms her body. And her body and her experience matter, no matter what she decides (though I pray it’s a decision for life!), so after-abortion medical care matters too. That’s incarnational theology. That’s knowing that Christ came as an unborn child in a body and that the resurrection and reunification of our soul and body are fundamental Christian doctrines.  

At the recent Women’s Convention in Rochester, I asked a difficult and delicate question. I asked if the pro-life movement has unintentionally and unwillingly treated pregnant moms as an incubator for a baby whose life is in danger. The majority of clinical services often revolve around helping mom see an ultrasound (which is indeed a positive development) but don’t expand into medical services that actually address the health of a pregnant (or ideally also pre/post-pregnant) woman’s body. Many pregnancy clinics simply can’t do more, and I understand that, but those that can should seriously consider expanded services.  

Pre-pregnancy, women need sports physicals, cycle care, STD testing, and well-woman exams. During pregnancy, women need HcG and progesterone testing, prenatal care, and birth options. After pregnancy, women need postpartum care and hormonal evaluation. After an abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth, women need care emotionally and physically as well.  

I understand that many clinics see their mission as saving babies from abortion, and see any women’s healthcare clinic service expansion as moving away from that goal. Others, however, have begun to see that expanding women’s healthcare is in service of that goal. Still others have found that offering women life-affirming health services is a valid part of the core mission in its own right, or have begun to directly refer to those that do in an ecosystem of care.  

I completely understand how difficult it is for clinics to add those services, and I’m not implying that every clinic can or even should, but I think that we do need more conversation in the movement about doing this. And ideally, we should do this not only because offering more women’s healthcare services helps save the baby (though it does) but also because women deserve life-affirming care in and of themselves.  

There is a way to talk about abortion that turns “woman vs. child” into “mother and child.” A way that acknowledges the woman’s difficulties and experiences and needs as much as the child within her, without sacrificing either in the process. One can never pit mother and baby against each other when their fates are inextricably tied.   

Encouraging the movement to become more woman-centric doesn’t have to mean justifying abortion at all. I am against intentional killing of unborn human life in all circumstances. But I think that it’s important to acknowledge where and when our pro-life messaging is falling short and failing to resonate, which happens (often unintentionally) when the woman’s bodily pregnancy experience is sidelined. 

Image licensed via Adobe Stock.