Passively pro-choice generation

The New York Times published an article in January titled “Debbie Wasserman Schultz Thinks Young Women Are Complacent.” In it, Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, states, “Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.” Twitter and other media blew up in response with hundreds of young women angrily listing their contributions toward advancing reproductive health and calling for Wasserman Schultz to resign from her position. 

As a woman born after 1973, I cannot make any comparisons between pre-Roe women and post-Roe women. I know many young women who are deeply passionate about reproductive justice and have dedicated their lives to the fight. However, I, like Wasserman Schultz, have been disappointed in millennials’ reaction to threats to reproductive health. The vast majority of my peers, even those who identify as liberal, are disappointingly passive when it comes to furthering reproductive justice. They are, at best, passively pro-choice.

{mosads}I believe my peers’ apparent complacency stems from two main issues: 

1. Laws restricting abortion are sneaky. They are presented as measures to improve women’s safety, despite no evidence that they better an already incredibly low-risk procedure. Additionally, some of the most destructive laws are state policies that receive very little media attention. Although abortion technically remains legal, each new regulation, each 24-hour waiting period, each clinic closure makes it harder for poor women to obtain abortions. 

2. My peers assume that our mothers have already won this fight for us. When I state that I am interested in abortion access, my peers respond with, “isn’t it already legal?” They think that the fight ended in 1973 because they erroneously believe that legality equates to accessibility. This misunderstanding creates a situation in which pro-choice advocates defend the law with lessened urgency, while individuals opposed to abortion raise their voices louder than before. This phenomenon, termed an “intensity gap,” would make sense if reproductive rights weren’t constantly being chipped away at the state level. We do not appreciate the amount of energy that it requires to keep abortion accessible. 

There is no doubt that there are many young women who are incredibly passionate about reproductive rights. I plan on dedicating my life toward furthering reproductive justice. But, as long as states continue to enact and enforce laws restricting abortion, this needs to remain an active fight. Although won by our mothers, the right to a legal and safe abortion must be actively maintained by our generation. And perhaps Wasserman Schultz’s controversial comment might, in her words, “[awaken] a sleeping giant in the millennials … in defense of the progress we’ve made.”

From Erika Boothman, Columbus, Ohio

---

Limit lawmakers to two terms