Abortion activists never tire of recycling the old, false notion that pro-life activists don’t really care about women or babies.
A professor and researcher at the University of California San Francisco claims to have a study to prove it.
This week, Professor Diana Greene Foster wrote a column for the Winona Daily News about her research, which claims that women who are denied abortions experience greater poverty and hardships than women who abort their unborn babies.
Greene Foster has been known to make outrageous statements in the past. In 2016, she told a U.S. Senate hearing that women should be allowed to deny potentially life-saving medical care to viable, late-term babies who are born alive after failed abortions.
No surprise to anyone familiar with the abortion debate, Foster said poverty is the most common reason why women seek abortions. She said many women in her study feared that they would not have the resources to care for a child.
“Being denied a wanted abortion results in a reduction in full-time work that lasts about four years; an increase in public assistance that persists until women are timed out of these programs; an increase in household poverty; an increased likelihood that women don’t have enough money for food, housing and transportation; and, finally, an increased chance that women are raising children alone,” Greene Foster wrote.
“In short, the study shows that not being able to access abortion services makes poor women poorer — it nearly quadrupled the odds that a woman’s household income would be below the poverty line,” she continued.
Though Greene Foster did not acknowledge it, this problem is a key focus of pro-life efforts as well. Pro-lifers run thousands of pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes and other programs across the country that help support low-income women and their children. They provide women with the support and hope they need to choose life for their babies.
Greene Foster and many other abortion activists have a different solution: Give poor women more opportunities to abort their unborn babies.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ
The results of our abortion-consequences study demonstrate the real costs of providing or denying women access to reproductive healthcare. The findings could help counter attempts to further restrict healthcare subsidies, and to reduce cash assistance, food aid or breastfeeding support to women. They show that government, employer, community and family supports for struggling mothers are already grossly insufficient to keep women and children from deprivation and poverty.
Perhaps the availability of hard data, and a small shift to considering unwanted pregnancy from women’s perspectives, will lead to an expansion of services and an opening of our hearts, minds and wallets.
Greene Foster absolutely is correct that there must be more support for struggling mothers. Unfortunately, her answer to this problem is to encourage more poor women to kill their unborn babies.
Low-income women should be insulted. Their children are just as valuable as the children of people with better means to support them. The solution should not be more abortions but more support for these struggling moms.
Every day, pro-life advocates are working hard to expand that support. Pro-life groups like Stanton Healthcare and a new Pro-Women’s Healthcare Centers initiative want to provide free and low-cost holistic health care to women in need. Pro-life student groups are setting up scholarships, free babysitting services, baby showers and more for moms on campus. And pro-life individuals give millions of dollars from their own wallets each year to provide shelter, food, clothing and more to empower women with the resources they need to care for their children.