Why Women Getting Abortions Now Are More Likely to Be Poor

If you do not like abortion, make birth control free to any female of reproductive age who asks for it. Unplanned pregnancy is directly related to access to birth control.

Rich or poor, why is it anyone’s business for any woman to choose abortion? My grandmother, who grew up impoverished in Romania, noted at an early age that poor women had many children, while rich women generally had no more than two. When she immigrated (legally) to the US, she married and had two children. They lived a middle-class life in Queens, NY. When my grandmother became pregnant for the third time in 1928 she did not want the baby. As was customary for women who chose to abort for any reason, she contacted a well-known doctor in the neighborhood who performed abortions. He came to my grandmother’s apartment with a nurse and did the procedure. The cost was $5. (If a woman couldn’t afford it, the doctor gave her $5.) No one was the wiser. My grandmother never even told my grandfather. It was her choice. My grandmother told me the story in the early 60s when we were sitting in my kitchen. There was a copy of Life magazine on the table. The cover story was about women who were prescribed thalidomide during their pregnancies and were grappling whether or not to abort.

If we truly need to make abortion rare, the first requirements are sex education and access to the best contraception possible. (I still thank Dr. Gjertrud J. Smith: Under her leadership, a Planned Parenthood representative spoke in my high school health class. In 1967? 1968?) If we want to support families to have children, why not support universal access to health care and health insurance? And free (or subsidized) child care for children 0-3? Quality public pre-Kindergarten (as is offered in D.C.)?

Just use the neighbor rule. Do you want to get involved right after conception with your neighbor’s pregnancy? The answer is no. I don’t want to get involved. You shouldn’t get involved. The state shouldn’t get involved. Until the mom comes out with the child, gets a birth certificate, and presents to the world... It is none of our business. As it has been for all time.

The original, historical purpose of Planned Parenthood was to reduce births by minorities and the poor. The organization has a very ugly history; Google it. Well, guess what. It's working. Disproportionately they help to abort the babies of the poor and of minorities. And then the Left sugarcoats this as women's rights. Orwell would be so proud.

I wonder how much cultural attitudes toward contraception play into this pattern of behavior. If a woman is a devout Evangelical or Catholic she might very well feel that using birth control is sort of doubling the sin if you will. Middle class women of those faiths of course do by and large use birth control. Among Catholics the attitude is pretty much don’t ask don’t tell. A pastor who started railing about birth control in the suburbs would soon find himself facing empty pews. Among the poor, however, the religious leaders can preach the virtue of abstinence and the sin of birth control. Some poor women may not know where to get free or cheap birth control even if it is available and socially acceptable in their community. This is just anecdotal but an acquaintance of my daughter’s, a woman. Who comes from a very impoverished background, asked her where she gets her birth control. “Planned Parenthood” she said. “Oh” said the woman “I thought they just did abortions.” To me it makes no sense to rail against abortion unless you are also strongly pushing for free access to birth control and preaching the necessity and virtues of its proper use. That is one of the reasons I am no longer a practicing Catholic but we have to take cultural differences into account.

C's Daughter, An organization that assists babies and mothers is 40 Days for Life. I know this group because I am actively involved and see the good works they constantly do. No mother or baby is ever left alone to their own devices. There are thousands of volunteers throughout the US and around the world. These people are some of the finest I have ever met. I never would be part of an organization that I did not respect. Their kindnesses shine through to those in their care. And they never judge!

Kansas, where women's rights are constitutionally protected, picks up the slack on the West side of Missouri just the same or more so than Illinois on the East. Missouri offers nothing outside of St. Louis for it's women and that's hanging by a thread. I'd highly recommend you avoid the state of Missouri if you value freedom and equal protections. And that hurts saying that about the state from which I was born. Religion has Missouri fully under its control.

A woman should never have to choose having an abortion because she does not have enough money to support a baby. The pro life movement was lax when it was first formed but has improved greatly over the years. Now organizations have set up housing, employment and job training for any woman in need. They are never alone in this very important endeavor of giving birth. Pro lifers are there before birth, during birth and way beyond the birth of the baby. It is only fair that these mothers and babies have all the support they need for as long as necessary. They are never deserted during one of the most important times of their lives. There is always a helping hand available. That is what we do.

Well, I'm sure that Henry Hyde, that adulterer that despised poor women and got his "Hyde Amendment" (that's really just a rule, not a Constitutional Amendment at all), I'm certain that old Henry is upright in his grave and applauding wildly to entrap so many POOR women in misery. I have no idea why Old Henry hated POOR WOMEN so greatly, but he did. You see, he wasn't against RICH WOMEN getting abortions and he wasn't really against abortion at all. He was just against POOR WOMEN getting abortions. He said it was because he didn't want those POOR women using USA funds, but there were many uses of USA Funds that Old Henry DID vote for! He was a regular nut case on anything the military wanted - except for any help for veterans, he wasn't much on that kind of thing, and he was all for upholding the sanctity of the South (which certainly had it's share of POOR back then!) and taking care of Historical Southern Monuments.... But Old Henry wasn't much on consistent philosophy. Even back then he couldn't rightly explain why, he was against the poor. And neither can any of those Republican men nowadays. I think they just like mischief-making. Misery. Panic. Fear. Terror. And utterly unending poverty. You know, I suspect that Old Henry would be getting a hard belly-laugh at what's happening on the border. I think Henry would love so many children in misery, so hopeless that they are suffering 'failure to thrive'. Old Henry would love this. Just like Old Mitch does,too. $$$$

The Fetus is a life to be cherished and protected, until birth. Then, a Baby is on its own. A Woman is human livestock, unless she's Rich. Then, she can go on a " Vacation ", and no one need ever know. Thanks, GOP. 2020.

Cool. This clears everything right up. Now that its all about poor women, we can dump abortion no problem. God does move in mysterious ways. Anybody analyzing the birth control market by religion these days?

"Keep them poor; keep them pregnant," - The GOP motto

One question I have is how they count abortions. It could be that women who are wealthier do not go to Planned Parenthood but to their own private doctors for care. Even if they used ICD coding (which is how doctors and clinics get paid) to figure out who had an abortion or not, coding could be done in such a way to cover the abortion per patient preferences, for insurance coverage, etc.

My mother in law who passed away not that long ago at 96 had an abortion in her mid-forties. This would have been child #6 and she was not able physically or emotionally to handle this one. Luckily there were some finances available and she was able to "vacation" in the Caribbean while having an abortion. She wasn't happy about it but she was essentially caring for elderly parents and her other five children without much help from her husband who traveled extensively for work. She knew it was the right thing to do for her at the time and she could afford to make it happen.

Perhaps poor women with unplanned pregnancies are less inclined to have the baby anyway because they are less hopeful. Less hopeful they could be part of a family (with the baby’s father) and less hopeful they can provide any semblance of an ordinary life as the poor get increasingly poorer.

I hope the democratic hopefuls will pivot from free care for illegals to free access to family planning services for women. Being poor is hard enough that having an unwanted pregnancy shouldn't be part of it.

Come on. Poor women have always been the candidates for abortions. There are simply more poor women now. And wealthy women find doctors outside of clinics to do their abortions.

This is all about controlling women's sexuality. It frightens them. So a man masturbates, spewing millions of potential "babies" down the drain. Where do you see the anti-abortion cultists railing against masturbation? Where do you see them supporting birth control? Or funding adoption agencies? No, it must be "abstinence only" for women. If they are raped, or victims of incest, they must have brought it upon themselves. Or that's what God wanted. I read "Handmaid's Tale" 25 years ago. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would become this close to reality :-(

Gee -- just like it used to be: Making America (more) Unfair Again.

The pro life movement has made great strides in assisting women who have decided to have their babies. We should continue helping them out and it would be feasible to have a hotline where women can call for our assistance. This would be easy to set up and there would be many volunteers ready and willing to offer much needed advice to these women in dire straits. Help would be just a phone call away.

This article accurately describes what will happen if Roe is overturned - only poor women will be disallowed from getting abortions because women with money and/or health insurance will continue to get abortions thru their ObGyn doctors thru D&C procedures or drugs like miso. It is encouraging that less women are getting abortions so hopefully more are on BCPs or getting IUDs. But the bottom line is that Roe or no Roe, abortion will NOT be stopped.

Why is an abortion costing $500 $100 because of blood type to the patient? This is an egregious amount of money, designed to keep poor women even poorer. If readers think this is normal, this is an amazing insight into the unfairness of the US health system.

Abortion and contraception are the most effective anti-poverty measures. Their effects percolate down generations, lifting women and their children out of misery, reducing crime and improving communities. A girl who has had an unwanted child in high school has likely ruined her own life and the lives of her current and future offspring as well. A girl who has gotten pregnant in high school and has had an abortion will be able to have education, career and eventually - if she so wishes - a family. This is a no-brainer. Only a weird theology can insist, in the face of scientific evidence and common sense, that breeding like animals is what human beings ought to do.

Seems clear that to reduce the number of abortions, we need to increase the number of people using effective birth control. If the government seriously wanted to eliminate most abortions, it would fully fund a woman's choice of birth control. Indeed, the federal government spends millions of dollars on Viagra for men so clearly a person's sexual health is a government priority. Equal rights demand similar attention be paid to women's sexual health. In order to enjoy sex, women should be free from the worry of getting pregnant. So, just as the federal government pays for Viagra, so too should it pay for women's birth control.

Alex, profiled at the end of the article, is a great example of why abortion needs to be legal, accessible, and affordable. She stresses that she needs an abortion in order to be self-supporting and to be the best mother she can to her existing child. I made the same decision when I had a 6-year-old for the same reason. Not everyone knows that most women who have abortions already have children.

“At the same time, women with higher incomes may have better access to highly effective contraception than before, Ms. Jones said.“. How is it that the anti abortion crowd cannot get behind the idea of providing highly effective contraception to poor women? All women should have that access.

The anti-abortion movement has always been (along with the movement to prevent women from obtaining safe legal female-controlled contraception), at its root primarily about controlling women of color. Or is it only a coincidence that since the Civil Rights Movement and RvW that states' abortion laws have become increasingly more restrictive as all women in general, and all people of color have gained political and economic power over time?

I'm not well off, far from it, but I have committed to making an automatic monthly donation to help these women. I had an abortion. I never regretted the second chance it gave me. I want to help others have that second chance too.