Despite the Republican party’s growing calls to ban abortion, few are truly giving Americans a full picture of what a ban on abortion would entail. Because abortion is seen as a moral issue for many, it would be ineffective to continue to address the issue with a perspective centralized around ethical and moral intricacies, as morality is inherently subjective. Therefore, in analyzing the merit and validity in plans to ban abortion, an analysis of what we know to be true about instances and consequences of restrictions on women’s reproductive can offer a more complete picture of abortion and all its societal impacts.

One implication of abortion is its relationship to crime. In a study by University of Chicago professor Steven Levitt and Stanford University Law professor John Donohue, it was concluded that legalizing abortion had decreased crime rates. According to economics professor Robert Barro of Harvard University, the conclusion of their study is that “the children who were not born would have been disproportionately likely to grow up in poverty and on welfare with a young and poorly educated single parent. Because these factors are known to breed crime the children not born would have been prime candidates to be criminals.” It sounds gruesome to justify the taking of a life on the possibility that they may become a criminal, but remembering that many states have not yet illegalized the death penalty puts a little perspective on the immorality of the way society treats people who have become criminals. While abortion’s effect on crime should certainly not be a deciding factor in the analysis of a possible ban on abortion, it is imperative that we understand the societal implications of a ban on abortion.

Another facet of a ban on abortion is its unclear definition. Pro-life advocate and author J.T. Finn writes that “research shows that in many cases the Pill causes early abortions, [including] abortions the mother may not even know she’s having.” His argument represents the voice of some pro-life advocates who take issue with the way the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. It is possible that this fluid definition could translate into restricted reproductive healthcare for women. In many countries with abortion bans, healthcare providers are hesitant to even treat miscarriage because the procedures needed to clear a second or third trimester miscarriage is the same as an abortion procedure. Furthermore, if a ban on abortion included the types of currently legal contraceptive that some pro-life advocates want banned then this would further limit women’s access to birth control. The fluid definition of abortion can sometimes extend to situations in which the procedure is not used for abortion purposes as well as to currently used contraceptive measures. In this way, a ban on abortion could be as restrictive to women as it is in countries who suppress women’s reproductive rights on the basis of religion, like in Bahrain, or on the basis of inherently misogynistic aspects of their society, like in El Salvador. In a country so protective of individual liberties such as gun rights, it is shocking that America could consider a ban so violating to a woman’s personal liberties.

It is also necessary to address that abortion is not always used as a form of birth control. Doctors can and do deem it medically necessary to perform abortions in cases of severe fetal deformities as well as in cases in which the woman’s life is in critical danger. In these cases, the women are often in the second or third trimester, and the procedure can be physically and emotionally damaging to the woman. It must be noted that while the woman can usually still choose whether or not she will have the abortion, the decision is heartbreaking. A decision so personal should never be dictated by the government, and this decision needs to be viewed with a deeper sense of understanding.

It is argued that few cases of abortion are categorized as dangers to the woman’s health, and even fewer are results of rape. But even if a proposed ban on abortion still allowed it in those few cases of medical necessity and rape, how would the government go about ensuring it’s truly necessary or that it’s truly rape? The Rape Abuse and Incest National Network cites that less than 1% of rapes committed lead to conviction and incarceration. So because the current state of our legal system so rarely convicts rapists, it would be unjust to use a conviction to prove rape, so even if a ban on abortion included an “accept in cases of” clause, it would still be largely unviable and ineffective in regards to rape cases.

Finally it must be noted that when anything is made illegal, there is still a way to obtain it. It just becomes much more dangerous. We can still see all around us the effects of Reagan’s declaration of war on drugs in the ways it’s increased gang activity and violence. We can also see how calls to restrict second amendment rights and gang violence resultant of the war on drugs have exponentially increased illegal gun sales. And it is likely that if abortion were to be outlawed we would see not that much fewer abortions were being obtained, but that safe abortions would be far less accessible. Banning abortion would only lead to unsafe, and in some cases life-threatening, abortion practices like the insertion of sharp objects, ingestion of harsh chemicals, and lye douches that were used prior to Wade v Roe.

Judging the morality of abortion is largely subjective, but in analysis of implications a ban on abortion would have it is clear that there are some heavy repercussions. Life should be respected and protected, but abortion is much more complicated that right and wrong. It is not black and white, and it is unfair to view it as such.