In an era where most would assume the protection of children and survivors of abuse is non-negotiable, a disturbing trend emerges: Republican lawmakers across the country are fighting to keep child marriage legal. Their stated reason? They claim to be pro-life.
It may seem like a relic from a bygone era, but child marriage remains a contentious issue in American politics. Recently, in Missouri, a legislative attempt to ban marriage under the age of 18 was met with staunch opposition from the so-called “pro-life” Republicans. State Rep. Hardy Billington argued that if a minor becomes pregnant and cannot marry, the likelihood of abortion increases—a situation he and others in his party seem to want to avoid, given Missouri’s stringent abortion restrictions.
Similarly, in New Hampshire, Rep. Jess Edwards expressed concern that restricting marriage to those of a certain age would make abortion a “more desirable alternative” for pregnant minors. These arguments reveal a disturbing nexus between restricting child marriage and limiting abortion access, driven by an ideological agenda rather than the welfare of minors.
Consider the story of Brown, a survivor who was married off as a teenager. Her experience highlights the grim reality faced by many young people pushed into early marriages. After marrying at 16, Brown’s life quickly unraveled. She dropped out of school, moved into her husband’s home, and faced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. Her decision to escape an abusive marriage and seek a better life was met with further trauma, including a prolonged legal battle for custody of her child.
Brown’s story underscores a harsh truth: child marriage does not offer protection or stability; it often exacerbates abuse and limits opportunities for young people. Research shows that those who marry young are more likely to face divorce, educational setbacks, and ongoing abuse.
Yet, Republicans are not only clinging to these outdated marriage laws but are also reviving archaic restrictions on abortion. The Comstock Act of 1873, aimed at regulating contraception and abortion, has resurfaced as part of a broader push to impose restrictive policies under the guise of “family values.” The Comstock Act’s revival is part of a larger strategy to enforce restrictive measures on reproductive health, linking back to historical laws that primarily affected women and marginalized groups.
Furthermore, the push to revive abortion bans, like the one upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2023, highlights a broader trend of enforcing outdated laws that disregard contemporary values and human rights. These measures, rooted in historical contexts where women lacked voting rights and legal protections, now target those most vulnerable in society.
The common thread in these policies is their impact on women and girls. A significant majority of minors in child marriages are female, and these laws often perpetuate cycles of poverty and abuse. Brown’s experience, and the experiences of countless others, reveal the harsh consequences of these policies: denied childhoods, limited education, and prolonged suffering.
As “pro-life” Republicans continue to defend these regressive policies, it’s crucial to ask: Would they allow their own daughters to marry at 16? Would they support forcing incest victims to carry pregnancies to term? The answer is clear. In advocating for the continued legality of child marriage and restrictive abortion policies, Republicans are prioritizing ideological stances over the well-being of young people and survivors.
It’s time for Americans to reject these outdated and harmful practices and instead focus on safeguarding the rights and futures of children and survivors. The moral and ethical responsibility of protecting the vulnerable should outweigh any ideological or historical pretext.
