•••
Lizz Winstead, quoted in “Two Minnesota women alter narrative on abortion” (Sept. 9), seemingly calls us to tell aspirational abortion stories. Regarding her abusive boyfriend, Winstead says she “didn’t know how to get out of that relationship, but I did know I’d never get out of it if I remained pregnant.” A woman in an abusive relationship needs freedom from the abuser. Why do we offer abortion rather than safety from abuse? Death as a solution is no solution at all — it affirms the power of the abuser. Protection from violence should be the priority.
What about other situations where women feel compelled to abort? When an employer threatens the loss of a woman’s job, do we celebrate her abortion to promote her career? I would rather celebrate enforcement of employment laws. If a pregnant woman has nowhere to live, we reason that abortion leaves only one person on the street rather than two. I would rather see her in stable housing.
In my volunteer experience at organizations providing food and social services, people arrive looking for practical support, not abortion. They want food for their children, not one fewer child. They want a job so they can pay for housing for their children, not to have fewer children. They ask for help with Christmas gifts for their children, never saying they wish their children hadn’t been born.
I say this to both sides of the political spectrum: Stop using abortion to divide. Use your time and money for the things we can agree on — safety, housing, food, employment. We can all work on these things. In fact, where I volunteer with “conservatives” and “liberals,” we all love working together because we have a common mission. Regardless of whether you feel abortion should be legal, is it really the priority? I think fulfilling basic needs ranks immeasurably higher. Can we set aside the division and work on these urgent issues? We may find that once we do, our debate on abortion won’t matter anymore.
Adrienne O’Connor, Minnetrista
•••