On March 26th, it was declared that Gavi, a health organization responsible for providing vaccinations to people in low-resource countries, would fall victim to the budget cuts imposed by the Trump administration. Seeing as the United States is the third biggest donor to Gavi, the effects of a lack of financial support will undoubtedly be felt and will prevent Gavi from saving millions of lives.
Dr. William Moss, who leads the International Vaccine Access Center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said we should expect to see “a resurgence of many other vaccine-preventable diseases” as well as “delays or disruptions to the introduction of new, life-saving vaccines in the communities most in need.” Trump’s choice to cut funding to Gavi goes against the “pro-life” values that his party so adamantly promotes. This decision, while contradictory, is not out of character.
The Republican Party is notorious for its defense of unborn children, often taking strong stances against abortion and arguing for the protection of hypothetical lives. Marjorie Taylor Greene, U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 14th congressional district, has spewed out similar rhetoric, stating “An abortion is not reproductive rights. It is murder, and it’s killing a baby.”
Many within her party agree with her, with around 71% of conservative Republicans or Republican-leaning voters saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Pro-life arguments often reflect that of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s, with people painting themselves to be strong advocates for the unborn. However, Trump’s recent choice to cut funding for Gavi is not a choice made in favor of life. So, why does a party that cares so much about the lives of hypothetical children not demonstrate the same care for these lives once they are brought into the real world?
Concerning abortion, the pro-life movement, which works to prevent abortions and “save lives,” actually puts lives at risk. The ban on abortions only poses a danger to the lives of mothers wishing to exercise their right to choose. Abortions are sought out for several reasons, whether they stem from personal choice or medical necessity.
Without access to professional medical assistance, many are left with no choice but to turn to unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions are defined as the procedure for terminating a pregnancy performed by a person lacking the necessary information or skills to carry out such a procedure. These methods, however, have put lives at risk, as maternal mortality rates are higher in states with more restrictive abortion policies. By campaigning against access to abortion, pro-life activists prioritize the potential life of a fetus over the real, lived experiences, health, and autonomy of those already alive.
The fight to sustain life should not be exclusive to the topic of abortion, yet for those who claim to be pro-life, it often is. In fact, those who are pro-life do not make enough effort to concern themselves with anything that actually threatens the lives of children. What could be considered a prominent threat to the lives of children? Gun violence.
According to CNN, at least 80 school shootings were reported in the years 2022-2024. 2022 was one of the deadliest years, with 47 fatalities. More broadly, the number of children and teenagers shot surpassed 5,000 in 2024. Of the 5,151 children shot, 1,403 died. Evidently, gun violence poses a great threat to the lives of children in the United States. Yet, where are the pro-life activists when children’s lives are actively being threatened? The same passion and care for life exercised by pro-life activists should translate to advocating for life-saving initiatives, like gun reform, which can actually protect children from death.
Moreover, those who claim to fight for unborn lives often oppose the operation of programs that would allow these same lives to survive once born. Children require a vast amount of resources, including food, shelter, and financial support. Unfortunately, not every child has these resources readily available to them.
Luckily, government-sponsored welfare programs work to assist low-income individuals and families. Some major welfare programs include Medicaid, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You would think that programs working to support millions of lives would be championed by the followers of a movement with “pro-life” as its name. Yet, these programs are not advocated for like the banning of abortions is. Why do the same people who fight to make sure a woman carries her embryo to term in the name of “life” refuse to stick around to support the sustaining of an actual child?
The reality is, if you are going to make it so that women are forced to bring a child into this world, you must also be prepared to advocate for that same child when its life is being threatened in truly dangerous circumstances. If you do not advocate for policies that ensure this child’s life is sustained, then you cannot label yourself as a person who truly cares for life.
With more life-saving initiatives being cut, like that of Gavi’s, it is becoming more evident that those who are “pro-life” do not dedicate the same amount of passion and advocacy toward keeping actual children alive. So, my question remains, is the pro-life movement really about life? Or, is it about controlling the reproductive rights of women?
Just Dance expert, green line regular, and matcha addict.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.