Professor’s Claim of Link Between Pro-Life Laws and Authoritarianism Faces Scrutiny

A recent opinion piece by University of Michigan Professor Seda Saluk has ignited debate over her assertion that pro-life legislation signals an authoritarian shift in American governance. Published in The Conversation, Saluk’s argument has drawn criticism for what some consider faulty reasoning and mischaracterization of the relationship between abortion restrictions and government systems.

Critics point out that Saluk’s central premise relies on a logical fallacy. While some authoritarian regimes have implemented pro-life laws, this correlation doesn’t establish that such laws inherently indicate authoritarianism, particularly in a democratic system like the United States with its established checks and balances, independent judiciary, and federalist structure.

“When a government erects barriers to comprehensive reproductive care, it doesn’t just cause more death and suffering for women and their families. Such policies are often a first step in the gradual decline of democracies,” Saluk wrote, drawing a connection between the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade and what she perceives as an authoritarian trend.

Saluk’s analysis highlights how abortion is framed differently in the United States compared to other nations. “Here, abortion has historically been framed as a personal right to privacy. In many other countries I’ve studied, abortion is viewed more as a collective right that is inextricably tied to broader social and economic issues,” she noted.

This framing difference represents a key aspect of the abortion debate in America. The individualistic “freedom of choice” approach has been a cornerstone of pro-choice messaging, while critics argue this obscures the complex social, economic, and relational pressures that often influence abortion decisions.

A study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that nearly 74% of women seeking post-abortion counseling reported feeling pressured to terminate their pregnancies. Serrin M. Foster, president of Feminists for Life, has argued that financial insecurity and lack of emotional support are primary factors driving women toward abortion.

“Most women ‘choose’ abortion precisely because they believe they have no other choice,” Foster has stated, suggesting that abortion decisions often stem from perceived lack of alternatives rather than genuine freedom of choice.

Saluk’s article also claims that maternal and infant mortality rates increase when abortion restrictions are implemented, an assertion challenged by statistics from countries like Poland. Despite having significant abortion restrictions, Poland maintains one of the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates at two deaths per 100,000 births, compared to the United States’ rate of 17 deaths per 100,000 births after decades of widely available abortion.

Another contentious point in Saluk’s argument concerns medical care for pregnant women. She suggests that physicians may withhold treatments in specialties like oncology or neurology due to fear of violating abortion laws. However, medical authorities, including the American Cancer Society, have stated that cancer can typically be treated during pregnancy, and no pro-life law explicitly prevents women from receiving necessary medical treatment, even if such treatment might endanger a pregnancy.

The debate extends to emergency care as well. Medical ethicists distinguish between directly terminating a pregnancy (induced abortion) and delivering a pre-viable fetus as part of emergency treatment. In the latter case, the death of the fetus is considered an unintended consequence rather than the primary goal of the procedure.

Saluk further argues that pro-life laws could lead to broader restrictions on civil liberties, including limits on free speech and criminalization of political dissent. Critics counter that the enforcement pattern has run counter to this prediction, pointing to the Biden administration’s vigorous enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act primarily against pro-life activists, despite FBI reports attributing 70% of abortion-related violence after Roe’s reversal to pro-abortion advocates.

The relationship between authoritarianism and abortion policy is historically complex. Nazi Germany, frequently cited as the quintessential authoritarian regime, actually enforced selective abortion policies—restricting it for “preferred” populations while mandating it for groups deemed “undesirable.” Similarly, China’s government has forcibly imposed abortions on certain populations, including Uighur Muslims.

These historical examples illustrate that abortion restrictions or permissions can be wielded by authoritarian governments in service of various ideological goals, undermining the assertion that pro-life legislation inherently signals authoritarianism.

As the debate continues, it highlights the complex intersection of reproductive policy, healthcare access, individual rights, and governmental systems—issues that remain at the forefront of America’s ongoing political and ethical discourse.