By Kristal Ramos Quevedo

The outcome of the recent election has had a profound impact on many people, particularly those who supported Kamala Harris. For some, the loss has been difficult to accept, leading to emotional reactions and even the severing of relationships with family and friends. In some extreme cases, people have resorted to participating in the "4B" movement. This response reflects the deepening polarization in our society and the frustration felt by some after the election results.

One of the key areas of misunderstanding between Trump supporters and Harris voters is the issue of abortion. Many Harris supporters mistakenly believe that Trump will impose a federal abortion ban, despite his position of leaving the decision to individual states. This has created a sense of panic among some women, who fear that their rights will be stripped away. However, it is clear from Trump's statements and policies that he does not seek to outlaw abortion at the federal level, but rather believes it should be decided at the state level. Nevertheless, the fear among some women, many of whom are not pregnant, continues to grow, as they worry about future access to abortion.

In response to these concerns, some women have turned to the "4B" movement, which promotes abstinence from relationships, marriage, and children with men. This is seen as a form of protest against what they perceive as a political decision that undermines women's rights. While their frustration is understandable, it is important to recognize that Trump’s policies on abortion are not as extreme as they are often portrayed. He has made it clear that he is not advocating for a federal ban but instead supports allowing states to make their own decisions on the matter. The movement itself, while certainly a form of protest, may be based on a misunderstanding of Trump’s actual stance on the issue.

There is also an irony in the way some women involved in the 4B movement have responded to the election. Many of these women criticize Trump voters for being uninformed, yet their own views on his policies appear to be influenced more by emotion than by fact. It’s important to recognize that, in many cases, those who supported Trump are not uneducated or indifferent to women’s rights—they simply believe that decisions about abortion should be made at the state level, rather than by the federal government.

Some critics have suggested that the 4B movement is a way for these women to reject not only men but also conservative values. While there is no denying that the movement has gained traction among liberal women, it’s worth considering the broader cultural context. In some ways, the movement’s rejection of traditional relationships and child-rearing could play into the conservative agenda of reducing abortion and curbing the culture of casual hookups. Ironically, conservative men may find themselves largely unaffected by the movement, as many of the women involved may not be interested in forming relationships with them in the first place.

In addition, the response from some men online, saying "your body, my choice" in reaction to the 4B movement, highlights the hypocrisy in the abortion debate. While women may claim "my body, my choice," it’s important to recognize that the unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but rather a distinct human being growing within it. In this light, the phrase "my body, my choice" becomes a less convincing argument, as it ignores the fact that the fetus is a separate individual. Similarly, when men say "your body, my choice," it reflects a misguided attempt to exert control over women’s reproductive rights, but it does not change the fact that the child is a separate entity with its own right to life.

Ultimately, the reactions to Trump’s win, particularly the 4B movement, reflect the growing divide in our country over issues like abortion, gender roles, and the role of government. While the fears and frustrations of those opposed to Trump are real, it is important to have an honest conversation about policies and their implications, rather than relying on misinformation or emotional responses. By focusing on the facts, we can begin to bridge the divide and understand that, at its core, the debate is about how to best balance personal rights with the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us.

This Op-ed reflects the views and opinions of the writer, not Westwood Review as a whole.