Who’s the ‘both’ in ‘Value Them Both?’ Not the pregnant woman | Opinion

For decades, political debates regarding the right to abortion have pitted the interests of pregnant women against the interests of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

Recent legislative proposals that would ban all abortion, even in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, have rightly led abortion advocates to label hardline abortion opponents as anti-woman for their single-minded focus on the interests of the fetus in all circumstances.

Recognizing the challenges that their misogynistic reputation poses to their political objectives, proponents of a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that voters will decide on Aug. 2 have attempted a clever rhetorical strategy, branding their anti-abortion amendment “Value Them Both.”

Marketing campaigns for the amendment feature a loving mother holding an infant, and the amendment’s preamble bluntly states that “Kansans value both women and children.”

In this way, abortion opponents hope to stave off charges of disregard for women’s rights and bodily autonomy by flatly declaring that they do, in fact, “value them both.”

If adopted, the amendment would nullify the protections provided by the state Supreme Court, which found that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy was protected by the Kansas Constitution.

Amendment proponents frequently play coy with the purpose of this endeavor, protesting that the amendment does not, in itself, ban abortion.

Anyone who is paying attention, however, can see that far-right legislators are champing at the bit to impose the same sorts of restrictions recently adopted in Texas, Oklahoma, and other states.

The anti-abortion movement’s “value” for the fetus is clear in the text of the amendment, but there is nothing in the proposal that would confer additional rights or benefits to women that they do not already enjoy.

Instead, the amendment seems clearly designed as the first step in an attempt to revoke women’s existing rights to bodily autonomy and health care decision-making power.

Who, then, is the “both” in “Value Them Both”? How are women “valued” by this proposed amendment?

To find out, I asked these questions to proponents of the amendment on social media pages endorsing its passage.

They had few legitimate responses to queries regarding the ways in which the amendment would actually demonstrate their “value” for women, and not just for embryos.

Instead, they appealed to their own personal appreciation of women and motherhood without addressing the substance of the amendment at all, or they made moralistic claims regarding the need to protect women from their own decisions regarding their bodies, or they cited mostly inaccurate claims regarding the current reproductive health care landscape to demonstrate the need for greater restrictions.

In substance, “Value Them Both” is a very traditional anti-abortion campaign that uses false or misleading information, stressing the importance of protecting embryos while ignoring the rights and human dignity of pregnant human beings.

When pressed on the matter, the amendment’s most ardent supporters cannot adequately explain how their proposal would do what its name suggests—that is, provide greater societal “value” not just for the potential future human lives that exist in utero but for the living, breathing women who carry those embryos.

If the amendment is approved by voters in August, pregnant women will very likely see their existing rights to bodily autonomy weakened or stripped altogether.

In reality, there is no “both” in “Value Them Both.”

This is a profoundly anti-woman proposal, firmly in the tradition of the American anti-abortion movement.

And Kansans who favor the preservation of women’s rights must draw continuous attention to the hollowness of the “Value Them Both” promise each day until the August election.

This story was originally published July 19, 2022 at 4:22 PM.