I'm really struck by the pass that is given to a teen's husband in banned or highly restrictive states if they facilitate their spouse's out -of -state abortion. Are they now saying that abortion is okay if a teen is married? Is she now protected from a "youthful indiscretion" because she has an equally youthful husband to think for her (or turning this on its head, a much older husband "coercing " (a favorite anti-concern) one way or the other)? I think not, however, they get muddled when patriarchy enters the picture, with the subtext of misogyny. In these camps there is no approval of sex until marriage, and ideally, the man in the partnership is the ultimate decision-maker.
What you're noticing is the crack in their logic that reveals everything.
When a teen girl is pregnant and seeking an abortion, she’s seen as reckless, immoral, incapable of decision-making. But suddenly, if there’s a husband—especially a male partner given authority over her—they twist themselves into knots to make exceptions. The same act that would be criminalized or condemned becomes tolerable, even justifiable, if it’s done under the watchful eye of a husband.
This isn’t about “protecting life” or “guarding children.” It’s about maintaining a gendered power hierarchy. A girl alone is dangerous—too free, too autonomous. But a girl under a man's control? That's order. That’s tradition. That’s palatable to the patriarchy.
They’re not confused. They’re revealed. The “protection” of youth is a smokescreen. What they actually want is control through patriarchy—with marriage as the mechanism and misogyny as the glue. The second there’s a man in the picture, even if he's 18—or 48—they’re suddenly open to “exceptions.”
Because in their view, a husband thinking for her is more acceptable than her thinking for herself.
I'm really struck by the pass that is given to a teen's husband in banned or highly restrictive states if they facilitate their spouse's out -of -state abortion. Are they now saying that abortion is okay if a teen is married? Is she now protected from a "youthful indiscretion" because she has an equally youthful husband to think for her (or turning this on its head, a much older husband "coercing " (a favorite anti-concern) one way or the other)? I think not, however, they get muddled when patriarchy enters the picture, with the subtext of misogyny. In these camps there is no approval of sex until marriage, and ideally, the man in the partnership is the ultimate decision-maker.
What you're noticing is the crack in their logic that reveals everything.
When a teen girl is pregnant and seeking an abortion, she’s seen as reckless, immoral, incapable of decision-making. But suddenly, if there’s a husband—especially a male partner given authority over her—they twist themselves into knots to make exceptions. The same act that would be criminalized or condemned becomes tolerable, even justifiable, if it’s done under the watchful eye of a husband.
This isn’t about “protecting life” or “guarding children.” It’s about maintaining a gendered power hierarchy. A girl alone is dangerous—too free, too autonomous. But a girl under a man's control? That's order. That’s tradition. That’s palatable to the patriarchy.
They’re not confused. They’re revealed. The “protection” of youth is a smokescreen. What they actually want is control through patriarchy—with marriage as the mechanism and misogyny as the glue. The second there’s a man in the picture, even if he's 18—or 48—they’re suddenly open to “exceptions.”
Because in their view, a husband thinking for her is more acceptable than her thinking for herself.
Let’s call it:
This isn’t about babies.
Well said.
Thanks,
Joan