upworthy

Reproductive Rights

A woman saying "back off."

There’s a growing trend in America of younger people not wanting to have children. In 2018, 37% of adults under 50 said that they didn’t want to have children, and, five years later in 2023, that number grew to 47%. That’s a big leap from those 50 and over, which over 31% said they never wanted to have children.

Why aren’t young people having as many kids?

There are many reasons why people decide not to have kids, whether it’s finances, the current state of the world, or a desire to spend their time and attention on their careers. But among those under 50 who aren’t interested in having children, the most popular reason is, they just don’t want to.

Tara Margulies, women’s health influencer and host of the Understand Your Cycle podcast, used a metaphor about a mythical genie in a bottle to explain why she doesn’t want to have any children. “If you gave me a genie and you said, 'You can have three wishes,' and I said, 'I want unlimited money. I want a 100% guarantee that I'm going to have zero complications in my pregnancy, my birth. It's not going to cause any problems in my relationship at all. And I'd magically have unlimited time to be able to do everything that I wanted as well as raise this child. I still wouldn't do it," Margulies said.

Margulies insists that her child-free choice is genuine and a hallmark of her generation. “And it's not some kind of feminist brainwash telling me that I'm finally allowed and should be selfish. It's that we are the first generation that's openly talking about it like this, and it makes people mad,” she said.

Her bottom line is simple: “Not everybody is meant to procreate, and that is okay.”

Margulies' followers shared their reasons for not wanting kids, which are all pretty straightforward. “Read something genius: Would I be a good mom? Yes. Would I be a happy mom? No." Anna wrote. “I don’t want children, and I never have. I have never felt the urge to be a mother. I honestly do not like kids, and pregnancy freaks me out. It is not the life for me. Courtney added.

woman says no, woman raises finger, no kids, childfree, independant woman, millennialA woman holding up her pointer finger.via Canva/Photos

A parent in the comments is totally on board with Margulies’ decision. “As a parent, I really don’t understand the hate and push to everyone to have kids. Kids are hard work. If you aren’t fully wanting it, why would you!" Luce wrote.

Margulies sees her decision as the logical result of the women’s rights movement. "In a lot of cases, we're the first generation of women in our lineage to be privileged enough to have a choice," Margulies told Newsweek. "We can make our own money, own our own property, we don't feel the pressure our parents felt to do what everyone else is doing."

woman says no, no kids, childfree, independant woman, millennial, noA woman with "no" written on her hands. via Canva/Photos

Margulies’ TikTok post is crucial because even though millennial women are in the position where they can confidently make their own reproductive choices, many women in her age group still feel pressured to have children. Those who do not are often stigmatized as selfish by their loved ones and society at large, even though studies show that childfree women are generally happier, healthier, less depressed, less anxious, and more satisfied than mothers. They also tend to have happier marriages and romantic relationship satisfaction.

The good news is that people like Margulies are choosing to be childfree because women have earned the right in developed countries to make their own reproductive choices and are in the position to live life on their own terms. Ultimately, it’s the best choice for all involved, because children deserve parents who fully invest in their decision to have them.

Kansas is voting on a constitutional amendment that would open the door to restrictive abortion laws.

Getting to the truth in politics is challenging as it is and it's hard enough just to get people to vote. The last thing we need is to have voters receive direct messages telling them that voting YES on an important ballot measure will do exactly the opposite of what it will do.

Yet that's what has been happening in at least one state.

In its current election, Kansas voters are being asked to vote for or against an amendment to the state's constitution that would impact abortion laws. The Value Them Both Amendment says that there's no constitutional right to an abortion and would grant legislators the authority to regulate abortions. According to NPR, it's the first ballot measure on reproductive rights in the U.S. since the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.


The night before the election, people in Kansas started reporting text messages that sounded very much like they came from a pro-choice source. "Women in Kansas are losing their choice on reproductive rights," the texts read. "Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women's health."

However, that's exactly the opposite of what voting yes would do. Voting yes on the amendment would open the door to more restrictive abortion laws. Voting no means keeping current regulations.

The texts came from several different 888 numbers and did not disclose who they came from.

The texts are pretty clearly meant to confuse pro-choice voters into voting for the amendment, telling them that a yes vote would protect women's reproductive rights when the opposite is true. It's blatantly misleading, but according to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, it's not illegal.

Not only do text messages about constitutional ballot initiatives not require disclaimers informing receivers of who has paid for them, but there's also nothing in the current statutes that addresses misleading wording. Lovely.

According to KMBC, the service Twilio disabled the user's account from sending out any more text messages as distributing disinformation is against the platform's terms of service. But the damage has already been done.

Naturally, people should read the ballot thoroughly before they vote and not just follow what some text tells them. However, ballots can be confusing. Language can be vague and/or biased, littered with legalese or contain muddled positives and negatives so voters aren't always clear on what they are voting for or against.

The Kansas amendment measure is confusing as it is written. Check out the language used on the ballot, as shared by The Guardian:


Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.

A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.

Shall the following be adopted?

§ 22. Regulation of abortion.Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

That's not a simple yes or no choice the way it's worded. "Do you want the state to pass restrictive abortion laws? Yes or No?" would be simple. The way this is written, you have to unravel language that's pretty clearly written to favor the amendment while also deciphering what it is you're actually voting for or against.

The text messages telling pro-choice people to vote yes because it will protect choice are 100% wrong and almost assuredly designed to confuse voters even more than the ballot already does.

It's a good reminder to ignore political messaging and to always read ballots carefully so that we know what we're voting for. Some people will go to extreme dishonest lengths to score a political win, so we must stay diligent as we exercise our civic right, privilege and responsibility.

Not Your Body, Not Your Choice.

Sometimes things are said unintentionally that can hurt feelings or cause harm but sometimes things are intended to do just that.

At the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, congressman Matt Gaetz made comments that essentially body shamed an entire demographic of people. His comments didn't go unnoticed as they made the rounds of social media. Olivia Julianna, 19, decided to make a witty response to his remarks on Twitter before Gaetz took her profile picture and shared it in what appears to be an effort to shame the teen's appearance.


Now, no one can fully say whether Gaetz intended to cause harm with his speech or his tweet until he decides to clarify his reasoning. But it sure seems Julianna's sassy response ruffled his feathers a bit. The teen made it clear that she would not tolerate body shaming by writing, "Its come to my attention that Matt Gaetz — alleged pedophile — has said that it’s always the ‘odious... 5’2 350 pound’ women that ‘nobody wants to impregnate’ who rally for abortion,” the tweet read. “I’m actually 5’11. 6’4 in heels. I wear them so the small men like you are reminded of your place.”

Gaetz is currently being federally investigated for sex trafficking. The congressman denies these claims and has currently not been charged with a crime.

Julianna let the world know in no uncertain terms that type of behavior wasn't OK. Given Gaetz's original comments about abortion rights activists looking "like a thumb" and saying, "they're like 5'2", 350 pounds," it's no surprise he came right back at the teen by sharing her profile picture to his 1.6 million followers. He captioned the picture with, "Dander raised," which according to Merriam-Webster means "to become angry."

The exchange didn't end there. Instead of backing down after the politician publicly exposed her photo to more than a million people, Julianna saw an opportunity. After the quick tiff, the teen used the increased attention to fundraise for the Gen-Z for Choice Fund, which distributes money to 50 different abortion funds across America. Julianna told Today that tweeting about the fund, which included a link, has since raised $168,000. She told Today, "I wanted to highlight the positive work that I'm doing from this very negative sphere that I've been placed in."

Congressman Gaetz seems to be going out of his way to make others upset. Even Mike Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, came out swinging, metaphorically of course in an unexpectedly strong statement on CNN. In the clip he implies that Gaetz will be unable to vote in the election due to him being incarcerated by the time November rolls around.

Julianna is the one coming out on top in this situation by using it to fundraise for a cause that is important to millions of people. I'm not sure what the future holds for this teen but something tells me she's someone we should be on the look out for in the future. She's a force.

Democracy

American Medical Association president explains how abortion laws are already causing harm

'These decisions turn out to be quite complicated in a lot of instances.'

Abortion is a part of reproductive healthcare.

The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has created a ripple effect of confusion and frustration in the medical field as doctors struggle to navigate the nuances of providing lifesaving care to patients under new state laws prohibiting abortion.

Who would have guessed that legislators criminalizing reproductive medicine—especially when they have no medical training or expertise in what can impact a pregnancy—could backfire? Who would have thought that politicians making decisions about what healthcare a person can and can't receive could lead to increased risks for patients?

Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), knows more than the vast majority of us about why medical care should be left to medical professionals and the harm that stringent abortion laws can lead to.

"These decisions turn out to be quite complicated in a lot of instances," Resneck told journalist Chris Hayes. "So trying to make hard and fast rules in legislative bodies that apply the same across the board is just incredibly dangerous for patients."


Since the enactment of trigger laws in several states after the Supreme Court ruling, we've seen story after story of vital healthcare being denied for patients, from prescription medicines for rheumatoid arthritis to potentially lifesaving interventions in pregnancies gone wrong. Doctors are unclear on what they can and can't do, and the criminalization of care that could fall under the abortion umbrella has created a stressful situation for doctors who end up stuck between providing the best evidence-based care and risking jail time or losing their career.

Resneck provided testimony on behalf of the AMA to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations as part of a hearing entitled “Roe Reversal: The Impacts of Taking Away the Constitutional Right to an Abortion.” In his statement, he explained how abortion laws put both doctors and patients in a dangerous position.

“The recent Dobbs decision overturned nearly a half century of precedent, ending patients’ rights to comprehensive reproductive health care, allowing government intrusion into the medical exam room, and criminalizing medical care," Dr. Resneck said in his statement. "And, now, physicians in many states are reporting chaos and confusion. Physicians have been placed in an impossible situation, trying to meet their ethical duties to place patients’ health and well-being first, while attempting to comply with vague, restrictive, complex, and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine and jeopardize the health of our patients. Physicians are worried about prosecution of their patients and themselves in the midst of significant legal uncertainty and this is dangerous for our patients."

Resneck shared that the Dobbs decision is already limiting people's access to medications that treat chronic disease and explained how it will "worsen existing gaps in health disparities and outcomes, compounding the harm that under-resourced communities already experience."

"States that end legal abortion will not end abortion, they will end safe abortion, risking devastating consequences, including patients’ lives," he added.

Resneck wrote that the association has “only begun to assess the full impact of the Dobbs decision on our physicians and their patients," and that at this point there are "more questions than answers." However, he reiterated the AMA's commitment to opposing the criminalization of medical practice and challenging criminal or civil penalites on patients or health professionals who find themselves legally at risk from reproductive healthcare.

If the associations of our nation's top medical professionals—not just at the AMA, but also those that specialize in pregnancy and birth, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and more—oppose abortion legislation, we should listen to them. They're the ones who have dedicated their lives to pregnancy-related medical care. They're the ones who understand the medical implications of this ruling and the laws that it triggered. They're the ones who should have a say in patient care, not government officials with no expertise in medical research or practice.

The state governments that are banning abortion are egregiously overstepping. No one but a doctor and the person experiencing the pregnancy should have any say in their healthcare, period.