Question for Pro-lifers and Pro-Choicers, about support after birth

[cags]

I constantly read on these abortion threads that all pro-lifers care about is the birth and that they don't care about what happens afterwards. You make it sound like there are no programs available right now that help support women who are on thier own.

Now I agree that sex education and access to contraceptives is lacking, but I'm having trouble with the fact that people say there is no help for after a child is born.

I'm basing this on experience, and every single woman I know (and I know alot) who had an unplanned pregnancy was never just left out in cold. There is free medical care, help with finding employment, housing, and education. I worked with an organization that provides free and low cost childcare to women who need it and there are other programs like these. I myself have benefited from these programs. They are government funded programs so I would assume every state has them.

My experience is limited to CA though. Is the support not the same in other states?

[Worst Username Ever]

1. To a point.

My experience is the same people who support pro-life causes also support CUTS in the welfare and medicare system, which assists in providing the care you mentioned. It would seem they support adoption to families that are financially capable of taking care of the child, more than they support the mother herself taking care of the baby.

[bloom]

2. I think support does vary a lot by state.

I don't know which ones are the better ones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. There are programs yes

but strict pro fetus folks, the leadership of the movement, want to make away wiht the limited programs that do exist.

If you got pregnant, their logic goes, is because you lacked the self discipline to avoid it.

This may not be the sand point of SOME in the trenches, but it is the standpont of people like Dobson, Reed and others... who happen to speak for a national movement...

If yuo are not pro fetus, please do soemthing to kick these Radcons off the stage, and I am assuming that you are asking this question becuse you are torn.

Oh and please do not use Credit Card Party frames when refering to these issues...

[northernsoul]

4. no personal experience, but...

I sure wouldn't want to be a single mom in a red state. In my experience, the so-called "family values" crowd are some of the pettiest and most vindictive people you would ever hope not to meet. A lot of them think it's a good thing if life is hell for a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy because in their view it serves her right for having had sex.

I haven't been reading too many posts on the abortion topic here, but I think the argument is actually that the same people who want to make abortion illegal and the same people supporting a political agenda that will do away with any form of support for the children who result from unplanned pregnancies. I don't have hard evidence, but I'd guess your average "pro-life" voter is also all in favor of doing away with WIC, Head Start, Early Childhood Education, Daycare subsidies, health insurance for poor kids, AFDC, etc.

[Bridget Burke]

5. The benefits vary widely from state to state.

Please do not "assume' that every state has them. And it may be that less is offered nowadays than when you received help--even in California.

[prole_for_peace]

6. I have a friend who is a single mother and she has a very

hard time making ends meet. There are very long waiting lists for services like child care and housing assistance. Some even tell her she makes too much ($8/hr) to qualify. That is ridiculous.

[cags]

10. What state is she in?

[prole_for_peace]

32. Texas.

One broke ass state.

[Verve]

7. California is a very liberal state as you know. It is not like the

majority of states when it comes to helping the poor. CA is much more generous.

My attorney friend once told me, there is US law and there is CA law. She said it's almost like CA is another country in some aspects.

[Warpy]

8. That wonderful support has a two year time limit

and doesn't provide anything for education. So a woman who has a child out of wedlock expecting support finds herself with a kid who isn't potty trained yet (and more expensive to put into daycare), no health insurance, no job skills, and no real way to get on her feet financially so she can provide for her child.

THIS is why we say they only consider life valuable from conception through birth. They consistently vote against welfare, against healthcare for poor mothers and children, against subsidized day care, against job training for welfare mothers, and against any increase in the minimum wage which would allow low wage earners some dignity.

They're hypocrites.

[cags]

9. Are you talking about CA or another state?

Because in CA I believe the limit is 5 years, and they do provide health insurance and help with education and employment.

[noamnety]

11. who pays the delivery expense?

Free well baby checkups and immunizations don't mean squat if you have a $5,000-10,000 bill for having the baby in the first place - that can be an entire year's salary if you have a minimum wage job and no health benefits. It's enough to keep a woman in poverty during their kid's entire childhood.

[cags]

12. In CA

The provided health insurance does, the mother pays nothing, not even a copay. Sister-in-law had a baby six months ago and the state paid for it all.

[K-W]

13. You answered your own question.

Your experience is only with a small subset of people in one state.

Nobody has ever said that there is nothing available for women with unplanned pregnancies, that is a straw man. The fact remains that not enough is available.

[cags]

14. Thats why I'm asking about other states

[K-W]

19. Understood, but I think you are fundementally misunderstanding the point

It isnt that there is nothing available or that no one is working to help women in this position, and I do hope you get data on other states.

But I think the real point here is that pro-lifers are pouring massive amounts of effort and money into a campaign to criminalize abortion. They have managed to gain an incredible amount of political support for thier cause.

If they had put that effort into an attempt to provide women with care throughout the nation, who knows how many lives they would have saved, and they would have found a way to actually cut the number of abortions. Something thier movement has on the whole, failed to achieve.

I think alot of people admire the dedication and organization of these people, we just cant, for the life of us understand why they have placed bringing our laws in line with thier morality as a higher priority than actually reducing the number of abortions in America.

[Mabeline]

15. Seems to me most often the abortion threads

only address the issue of abortion in it's self...most often no one asks what a pro-life person believes or thinks about what can be done to help the women that do keep their babies after birth. It is assumed that we would just end our support at birth and not support any kind of programs to help single women support their babies and themself.

Of the women who I know, the teens live at home with their parents and are helped a lot because most often their parents support them (some even continue to have their parents ins) and help with caring for the child(ren) so mom can go back to school or to work.

The state we live (KY) in has a state based ins where women have ins throughout pregnancy and 3 months after (no co-pay, nothing out of pocket..I do know this, I utilized it during my last pregnancy which ended in another c-section) and the child is covered until 18 years old or mom's household income changes and goes above like $25-$30,000 (depending on size of the family). Immunizations are either free at every health department or if you dohave private ins, they can be up to a few dollars. Well baby checkups are included in their medicaid or KCHIP. Mom and any other chidren get WIC (mom until birth unless she breastfeeds, then it is a year I believe) as well as qualifying for food stamps and I believe I heard we have a state supported day care system (I don't know a lot about this as I have never used it). A friend of mine was telling me that our state has a program where they will put mom through school so she has a better chance of getting a better job also, I don't know if this is true or not. As for housing we do have a program, I forget the name(Appalachian Housing Project or something like that), we just call it HUD.

And many of the single women end up marrying which then changes things also.

[K-W]

20. No it isnt an assumption at all.

There is a massive movement to criminalize abortion in this country, if it were true, as you say, and those people also wanted to provide support for mothers, wouldnt there be an equal movement from the same places to do so?

Where is that movement exactly?

And if that movement existed, would it not be a fairly non-partisan issue that the entire country could unite around?

I mean seriously, if the pro-life movement wants to provide women with assistance, lets do it.

[Mabeline]

23. If the movement were

THAT massive, it would be criminalized. If someone were to try and start some kind of support system that didn't involve forcing many of us who don't believe in abortion to also support abortion then maybe more pro-life people may support it.

Why then can't pro-choice and pro-life people decide to put the abortion issue aside and figure something out for those women who do or would keep their babies instead of fighting about abortion?

[cags]

25. I think this is the common ground for both sides to get behind

[K-W]

27. movements cant rewrite the constitution, that doesnt mean they arent big

It would take a major supreme court ruling or an ammendment to the constitution to criminalize abortion, those dont grow on trees. It makes the case for non-criminalization plans to reduce abortion even more attractive. Criminalizing is an aweful lot of work for what would be a mostly superficial gain.

Getting programs setup for pregnant women would take nothing more than an act of congress. Something that a movement can have a great impact on.

People on the left have been fighting tooth and nail for healthcare for women and children for ages. Where have the pro-lifers been? There are plenty of organizations fighting for healthcare for people who need it who have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with pro-choice groups.

We are talking about a movement that got criminalizing abortion as a keystone of the Republican platform. If they put healthcare for women and children as a primary concern they could surely swing a large amount of republican votes. That would make it a strong bipartisan issue that would almost certainly see action.

And I do realize that on the individual level alot of pro-lifers also believe strongly in helping women and children who need healtchare, but that isnt what matters in policy, what matters is policy is what is happening at the top levels of the pro life movement in the republican party, where criminalization is the only issue.

[cags]

28. I also think more pro-life people would get behind preventative

measures if abortion was taken out of the equation.

[LisaLL]

16. experience

My experience has been in four states either working in association with an Ob/Gyn residency run hospital clinic or covering the residents in one. I saw patients in the Ob clinics, Gyn clinics, and on Labor and Delivery.

Most of the patients were able to get prenatal care through welfare or charity care, though it was not uncommon that they could not start prenatal care early enough because they did not have coverage yet. It did happen that patients arrived in labor who had not had any prenatal care because of status or coverage.

The vast majority of these patients did not have any options for child care. Because of this, work was not an option. They would almost always bring all their kids in when they had OB or gyn exams. Aftercare was not available. The school systems where they lived were not as good/safe as the other public schools in the area. Many had poor follow up for health care for themselves and their children because, in addition to being poor, they had no access to transportation. Regarding the health care for children--many did not have coverage for routine pediatric care and would arrive in the ER with kids who were sicker because they were not treated earlier and had not had their conditions (like asthma) managed as outpatients.

I've heard that CA has better support for their poor (being a liberal state and all). The programs I have seen in my states have been very much underfunded or some that you describe nonexistent.

[LisaLL]

18. also

also many prescribed medications were not taken by these patients (and their children) because they could not afford them. That happened all the time.

[Mabeline]

22. Just a quick question about coverage..

I found out I was pregnant with my last baby when I was about 7 weeks pregnant...I went immediately to the health dept who sent me to the correct offices toget my (medicaid) ins started..it was probably another month before mine went into effect..

I was just curious if their ins wasn't in effect because they didn't go apply sooner or if it took that long for it to go through. I have heard that in some larger cities it can be a long wait.

[cags]

24. Question, Do you know

if the healthcare was denied or not offered to them?

Also which states are these, I'm trying to gather some info.

[LisaLL]

31. healthcare

I don't know the specifics. I took care of whoever showed up. I hooked them up with the social workers to help and left the details to them. This was NJ, PA, NC, and RI.

[SemperEadem]

33. maybe 15-20 years ago that was true about CA

But not anymore.

http://www.cadem.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvLRK7O3E&b=190090&ct=230574

ARNOLD HELPS HMOs BY REFUSING TO TO HELP PREGNANT WOMEN: The San Diego Union Tribune reports the first bill Schwarzenegger vetoed was one that "would have forced health plans to cover maternity care and hearing aids for children, established charity care policies for hospitals help prevent the closing of acute care hospitals." The bill's author, Sen. Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo), criticized the veto as discriminating against women who cannot afford maternity care. "This is a serious setback for women's health in California,'' Speier said in a news release. The veto "allows insurers to drop maternity care from basic coverage, in order to sell lucrative low-cost policies to target populations.'' The California branch of Planned Parenthood issued a press release saying Schwarzenegger's veto "sends a message to women that their health and their pregnancies don't matter."

ARNOLD IGNORES THE UNINSURED: Despite California having one of the highest rates of uninsured citizens in the country, Schwarzenegger rejected legislation that would have required hospitals to provide discounted rates to those without health care. He also "vetoed two bills that would have required hospitals and emergency rooms to provide lengthy warning before closing and would have penalized those that did not." Beth Capell, of the consumer advocacy group Health Access, said "You can see a pattern here of the governor saying kind words about the need to recognize the interests of consumers, but then his actions side with hospitals who overcharge, hospitals that close with very little notice and insurance companies that engage in predatory behavior by marketing health insurance that does not include maternity care."

Also see: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/9737750.htm

[cags]

34. I think your misreading that

I don't why they would need to force health plans to cover maternity care since most of them do already.

And it was a new bill that didn't go through so it didn't change anything.

My sister-in-law had a baby six months ago which the state fully paid for.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. State by state spending on child welfare

here and it is interesting.(1999 data)

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6414#al

[cags]

21. Thank you, I was looking for this information

[goddess40]

26. Not 1999 data

This report was published in 1999 but the information is for fiscal year 1995-1996. Things have gone down hill since then due to most states having economical problem. And the money will continue to go down for welfare as the feds are giving less money to most states.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. sorry. my bad

should read "published" and I have no doubt that things have gone downhill. But for the purpose of this thread, it does give some information as to how states take care of the children even if it was ten years ago. It would be nice to see percentages according to population and according to state budgets.

perhaps there are some new studies being done.

I am no statistician or no mathemeticain either but Florida sure looks out of whack to me. And take a look at Texas.

[txaslftist]

30. Watch for the baby-snatchers...

One of the distressing things I encountered in Wisconsin was a number of my female, juvenile clients having out of wedlock pregnancies, then asking the Dept. of Human Services for assistance. Once DHS got involved, the likelihood was very strong that they would take the child and put it in foster care while the mom was given increasingly arduous 'conditions of return' to meet. If the conditions were not met within 1 year or so, DHS would petition the court to have the child put in the foster home permanently, and free up the foster parents to adopt.

So once again, careful what you ask for...

[China_cat]

35. You can get help for 2 years only.

After that you're on your own. Coming up are even more draconian laws which will cut off financial support for single mothers after 6 months.

But financial support is only part of it. For most single mothers the hardest thing is being shut out of most of society. Very few have emotional support systems from the people who have talked them out of having an abortion.

[wildeyed]

36. I read somewhere that there is a direct correlation between

the services provided poor pregnant women and the restrictiveness of their abortion laws. The more restrictive the laws, the fewer after birth services they provide. I don't have a link to prove it, but would be interested if anyone else has something.