By John Q. Hosedrinker I can hardly wrap my head around the recent arguments presented by the Missouri Attorney General regarding the abortion pill and its impact on teen pregnancies. To say they’re bizarre would be an understatement. The assertion that the availability of mifepristone will somehow harm the state by lowering teen pregnancies is a perplexing dive into a kind of logic that is hard to comprehend. It’s shocking to see a political figure arguing in favor of more pregnant teens as if that’s the solution to some ill-defined crisis. What are they thinking?
The argument seems to boil down to a starkly utilitarian view of women—they’re seen as vessels for reproduction rather than individuals with agency and rights. In a chilling twist, it feels as though there’s a longing for an era where women weren’t allowed the autonomy to dictate their own futures. The claim seems almost outrageously candid, revealing a perspective that celebrates the idea of childbearing among teenagers. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to cultivate an environment where young people can thrive in their childhoods rather than being thrust into parenthood before they’re ready?
It’s hard to ignore the underlying motives behind this rhetoric. If the concern is truly about state representation and federal funding, it appears their love for pregnant teens is less about the welfare of those teenagers and more about political power. The implication that more pregnancies will result in greater federal funds is staggering. What kind of twisted logic leads to an appreciation for higher birth rates among an already vulnerable population? This isn’t about protecting women or children; it’s about maintaining a system that benefits those in power.
Reflecting on societal progress, it seems absurd to argue that teen pregnancy is something to be celebrated or desired. The decline in Missouri’s teen pregnancy rates over recent years is not a crisis; it’s progress. It indicates more young women are taking charge of their bodies and futures. I can’t help but feel that we are in some sort of existential crisis where a segment of our society is longing for the past—some ideal where adolescent girls are expected to become mothers rather than talented, ambitious individuals. Why is there this fixation on controlling female bodies instead of focusing on pressing issues such as healthcare, education, and violence?
Even more troubling is the disregard for the reality that many of these pregnancies would lead to less-than-ideal outcomes. Raising children is a monumental responsibility that requires stability, financial resources, and support—none of which are guaranteed when young women are expected to navigate motherhood at such a tender age. To push for higher rates of teen birth seems intrinsically cruel. It ignores the complexities of life and pushes young women into situations that could lead to devastating consequences for them and their children.
As a society, we should strive for better outcomes for our youth. The lessening of the burden of unplanned pregnancies allows young girls to pursue education, create careers, and enjoy their formative years without the weight of unprepared parenthood. Suggesting that promoting a culture or policy that encourages more teen pregnancies is somehow beneficial defies logic and evades responsibility. It points to a deeply unsettling desire to control women rather than empower them.
In wrestling with this argument, I cannot help but wonder about the long-term impacts on Missouri’s social fabric. As a citizen of this state, the idea that political leaders would prefer to have more unprepared young mothers rather than invest in sustainable solutions for social issues feels negligent at best and predatory at worst. There’s a concerning fixation on what can best serve the political landscape rather than the actual needs of families and children. It’s as if they believe a growing population—regardless of its well-being—is the answer to all of their concerns.
How did we reach this intersection of male-dominated politics and an outright antagonism toward women’s rights? The arguments being presented seem to suggest a regression to medieval ideas about women’s roles. Instead of supporting the health and autonomy of women, there is a push to re-establish outdated notions of what it means to be female in America. No, women are not brood mares; they are complex beings deserving of dignity and choice.
Ultimately, it’s clear to me that the Attorney General’s position is not about improving lives or communities; it’s a naked yearning for control and power at the expense of the very people he claims to represent. We must question the ethics of such an approach. Do we really want to return to an era where young women are penalized for aspiring to more than motherhood? I cannot abide by a narrative that would hold our girls back from realizing their full potential. It’s about time we start advocating for a society that values education, healthcare, and the well-being of all rather than succumbing to regressive ideologies that jeopardize the futures of our youth.