It might feel good to say you have a moderate view on abortion. You might think you’ve found common ground or a reasonable compromise. For people living under so-called moderate abortion laws, the reality is much harsher.
I’d like you to think about one of the typical patients at my reproductive healthcare clinic in Arizona. She’s already juggling so many things like childcare, time off work, and borrowing money from family for her abortion appointment. She breaks down in tears when she discovers the state’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period will mean two separate trips.
“Why can’t I have an abortion today?” I’ve heard many patients say. “I got the day off of work today.”
This story is heartbreakingly common. These laws, framed as moderate, force patients into impossible decisions: skip work and risk losing their jobs, borrow money they don’t have, or delay care until it’s no longer an option. For many, it’s coercion by another name.
If you’ve ever thought, “I’m pro-choice, but there should be limits,” I encourage you to consider what those limits mean. Do you support turning a basic healthcare decision into an insurmountable obstacle for those already struggling?
The moderate view on abortion may sound fair in theory, but in practice, it denies a real choice to the people who need it most.
That’s not moderation. That’s oppression.
The Illusion of Choice
On the surface, being an abortion moderate might appear to preserve access while ensuring safeguards.
While abortion remains technically legal in some states, logistical barriers, travel requirements, and restrictive policies systematically erode genuine access, especially for low-income and marginalized communities.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortions have become slightly more common overall, but primarily due to the rising use of abortion pills and increased travel to states where care remains available. For residents of states with abortion bans, like Texas or Florida, accessing abortion means arranging time off work, paying for travel and lodging, and the stigma of having to seek care across state lines. The very notion of choice becomes meaningless for those without resources.
One telling example involves Florida, where a six-week abortion ban has dramatically reduced local access. Residents are now traveling over nine hours to North Carolina for care during the first trimester. Meanwhile, abortion travel funds are cutting back assistance due to overwhelming demand.
This is why I don’t like using the phrase “pro-choice.” It’s just a label dreamed up by politicians. True choice requires safe, affordable, and timely access to care. Without these, choice is an empty promise.
Other Historical but Immoral Compromises
Abortion legal compromises often lean on incrementalism, which means enacting small changes over time to achieve sweeping policy goals. While incrementalism can be an effective strategy in some contexts, history shows it’s ineffective in protecting fundamental human rights. Incrementalism often prolongs oppression instead of resolving it.
Incrementalism emphasizes gradual change through collaboration and small policy shifts. Advocates argue this approach is efficient, politically expedient, and less disruptive. However, its application in the fight for civil rights, women’s suffrage, and LGBTQ+ equality shows how it can often result in half-measures.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 addressed racism but left discrimination in housing, education, and economic opportunity in place. Even Martin Luther King Jr. famously decried “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” in his I Have a Dream speech, calling instead for immediate action to fulfill the promises of democracy.
The parallels to abortion restrictions are clear. Mandatory waiting periods, gestational limits, and targeted restrictions against abortion providers lead to clinic closures and delay meaningful change. It often serves as a tool to maintain the status quo, allowing injustice to stand under the guise of progress.
A Bioethical Lens on Abortion Rights
The core of the abortion debate can be found in bioethics, particularly the four foundational principles of medical ethics: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.
1. Autonomy
Patients have the right to make informed decisions about their own medical care. Restrictive abortion laws, such as waiting periods and bans on telehealth visits, force delays and unnecessary burdens. These laws undermine autonomy by prioritizing external control over personal decisions.
2. Nonmaleficence
A doctor’s duty to “do no harm” is compromised when abortion restrictions lead to unsafe procedures and delayed care.
In states with restrictive laws, patients with pregnancy complications are often denied timely care, increasing the risk of severe harm or death. These policies directly violate our commitment to prevent avoidable suffering and harm.
3. Beneficence
Providing beneficial care is one of my core obligations—but abortion bans can prevent providers like me from acting in their patients’ best interests. Access to abortion can protect physical health, alleviate suffering, and support family stability.
4. Justice
Equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental ethical principle, yet abortion restrictions make inequality worse. Communities of color, particularly in states like Mississippi, face disproportionately high barriers to abortion care. Restrictive laws violate our right to fair healthcare access.
Beyond ‘Choice’ to Pro-Abortion
The more I see the reality of my patients’ struggles, the more I realize that “pro-choice” just doesn’t cut it. It assumes everyone has the resources and freedom to choose, but choice isn’t even on the table for many people. That’s why I’m unapologetically pro-abortion.
I’m not saying that abortion is the right decision for every person in every situation. I’m saying it’s necessary, life-affirming healthcare that no one should be ashamed of accessing.
Historically, abortion rights supporters identified as “pro-abortion,” particularly before Roe v. Wade, when the goal was clear: legalizing abortion. Over time, “pro-choice” replaced this language, softening the movement’s rhetoric. While this shift was strategic, it often obscured the fight for access.
As Planned Parenthood’s former CEO Cecile Richards noted, today’s battle isn’t just about having a legal choice—it’s about overcoming the economic, geographic, and political barriers that make abortion inaccessible for millions. For example, in over 30 states, restrictive laws have all but eliminated the ability to obtain an abortion.
Being pro-abortion means fighting for policies that make abortion accessible and affordable. It means dismantling the shame that surrounds it and affirming abortion as essential healthcare.
It’s about standing steadfast with patients and saying, “I trust you. I support you. And I’ll fight for you.”
