United States Supreme Court sends states back 50 years

To say this is an issue wrought with nuance and polarization downplays the long-standing implications the recent decision to overturn Roe V. Wade has for people with uterus’s in the United States, as well as here in Canada.
We can’t help but notice, the “freedom fighters” in opposition to public health measures throughout the pandemic, have by and large, been awfully quiet when it comes to bodily autonomy in this context. This is indeed a sorrowful time for women and people with uterus’s alike, as the fate of these people’s lives, futures, and mortality are now in the hands of state-lawmakers who have been eagerly awaiting the chance to strip people of their right to choose.
Although the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the United State’s Supreme court does not immediately remove Canadian’s access to this healthcare, it does highlight the already inaccessible system here and amplifies anti-freedom extremism and gives the long-standing forced-birth groups precedent and something to strive toward.
We can’t argue the validity of those in opposition, however logical, scientific, and eloquent we present these ideas, there is inevitable pushback, and that is fine: so long as that choice does not impact other’s ability to determine the fate of their lives and body.
How can we profess equity or equality when there are zero laws which govern what men can do with their bodies? How can we claim to value human beings when people who give birth have no choice but to die in the absence of medically-necessary healthcare services? What does it say when we tell our daughters to relinquish their personhood and decision-making capacity in tandem with the political and religious teachings of people who can’t begin to claim to know their stories.
What is explicitly being said when we tell others their lives are secondary to someone else’s immaterial conception of morality? We are hopeful Canadian politicians will be strong in their resolve to keep women safe; to keep religion out of medical practice, and to keep defending the vital freedom to choose.
In solidarity.