The stakes in the 2024 Presidential Election are monumental for women’s health in ways that extend far beyond abortion access. Kamala Harris’ presidency is crucial not only for the preservation of reproductive rights but also for safeguarding the broader landscape of women’s health care that is under dire threat from Trump’s regressive policies. Women’s healthcare access is already fractured, and another Trump administration would deepen this divide, worsening outcomes and eroding access to essential services on which millions of women rely.
“After…nobody even coming close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade…and put the Pro Life movement…over the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond,” Trump boasted on Truth Social, his Twitter dupe.
Despite the declaration of many legal scholars that it would not be possible for Trump to overturn Roe, he kept his 2016 campaign promise to appoint Supreme Court justices to do so.
During his term, Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, a number not seen since Nixon. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett happily bolstered the conservative majority, enabling the end of the federal right to abortion through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a decision a majority of Americans oppose.
The former President’s incessant and deranged rhetoric on abortion shifts the conversation away from critical issues in women’s health. In the presidential debate of this election with Harris, Trump repeated false claims that Democrats support abortion “after birth” and “executing” babies. This constant stream of misinformation brings discussions of women’s health to a frivolous standstill. Rather than advancing the conversation to address the unintentional consequences of Dobbs, such as the mass exodus of obstetricians from the most restrictive states, we must debunk “execution” claims.
We must recenter women at the heart of conversations surrounding abortion rather than sensationalizing egregious soundbites because the consequences are deadly and permeate every layer of healthcare available to women. The collateral damage to cancer screenings, contraception, and prenatal care is vast, creating a healthcare environment where women’s health is chronically underfunded and underprioritized. Pregnant women diagnosed with cancer cannot properly access their treatment under abortion restrictions. Additionally, abortion restrictions have led to more high-risk pregnancies being carried to term. As a result, we have seen a seven percent increase in overall infant mortality since Dobbs.
The Republican Party has united around a platform that systematically diminishes women’s rights and access to healthcare. Harris stands against this regressive agenda, yet the Democratic Party remains fractured. Many further on the left are considering “protest votes” for third-party candidates like Jill Stein, despite the undeniable reality that such votes could swing the election towards Trump, so much so that Republican-aligned super PACs have been working to boost Stein in crucial states, such as Georgia. This division is self-destructive, ignoring the real consequences of protest votes.
Voting in this election is about choosing your opponent. A third-party vote may feel like a principled stand, but it’s ultimately an exercise in futility that only helps to empower Trump and his aggressive, anti-woman agenda.
Trump’s strategy isn’t limited to just abortion restrictions; it spans a comprehensive rollback on women’s health access, with nationwide implications. As noted by Michelle Obama, a single-term president can reshape the judicial landscape for decades, casting shadows on crucial healthcare rulings that impact more than reproductive freedom alone.
The Democratic Party needs a unified front to win this fight. It’s essential to consider the practical implications of this election and move beyond ideological purity.