From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:24:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.184226.13530@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Jul24.175847.11369@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

## Often women who, in desperation, seek back alley abortions do so
## because there are no other options for them. A poor woman in a crisis
## pregnancy (where abortion is illegal), has three choices : [1] have an
## abortion, [2] carry the child and try to raise it in poverty [3] or
## give it up for adoption.
## 
## I do not believe a woman ought to have to deal with such bleak
## choices. Giving a child up for adoption is no easier than the decision
## to terminate a pregnancy, yet our society does little to make it
## easier for women to keep their children and raise them without
## suffering poverty. 
#
#Giving a child up for adoption still entails remaining pregnant,
#and some women decide, responsibly, that they do not want to
#be pregnant at all.  Your posting, while interesting, does not
#address the issue.
#
#I am entirely confused by the reference to "back alley abortions."
#I see that you are posting from Georgia, so I assume you are
#referring to circumstances in the United States.  If not, then
#I am in error, but currently there is no need to seek a "back
#alley abortion" since abortion is a legal option in the
#United States and can be obtained for a fee that is not
#exceptional.
#
#I agree that women should not have to deal with bleak choices.
#
#I do not see how the choices outlined are, of necessity, bleak.

Poor women in the U.S. typically have two choices, rather than
three.  Unless they are fortunate enough to live in one of the
few states that provide publicly funded abortions or to live
near a clinic which provides free abortions for indigent women,
the "not exceptional" fee can be prohibitive.  (I know women
on AFDC who receive less than $500 a month.  A $200 abortion is
simply impossible on that kind of budget.)  A woman in a rural
area may be able to pay for the abortion itself but not for
the travel expenses required.  These women sometimes
turn to the back alley for abortions.  
     Rosie Jimenez, the first woman to die of the results of an 
illegal abortion after the Hyde Ammendment went into effect, 
lived in Texas, where abortion was certainly legal.  The partera 
who did the abortion charged less than $100, I believe.  (Her fine 
for killing Ms. Jimenez was exactly $100, so that may be why that
number sticks in my mind.)  If you are very poor, the difference
between one and two hundred dollars may be insurmountable.  

The changes that Mr. Heath proposes are good ones.  I would hope,
though, that he considers the plight of poor women who are
not basing their decision to terminate a pregnancy on their
financial status as well.  

I'll close with an anecdote.  I have a friend who is poor.
She works at a minimum wage job.  She would like to go back
to school to finish her degree, so that she can make a
decent living.  She talked to a social worker about her
options.  She has a chronic kidney ailment, so she hoped
that she would qualify, at the least, for some medical
assistance.  
The social worker advised her to get pregnant.  She was told
that, if she were pregnant, it would be easy to qualify for
Medicaid.  The social worker added that, if my friend would
place the baby for adoption, she could arrange a private
adoption, in which case my friend would be compensated for
medical expenses and "have a little bit left over for school."
My friend rejected this plan.  The social worker pointed
out that my friend would qualify for AFDC and Medicaid
should she keep the baby.  My friend rejected this plan,
as well.  (She's going to start school in the fall, and
keep her fingers crossed about her kidneys.)

Susan