Editor,
Many people get confrontational about the emotional nature of the debate surrounding a woman's right to choose, but it's a public finance issue as well. The Bush administration has spent public funds in ways that push an anti-choice agenda, and the public hasn't had much to say about it.
The Global Gag Rule prevents clinics in foreign countries from receiving U.S. money if they perform abortions, provide counseling and referral for abortion, or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country. The clinics may not receive any U.S. aid if they provide these services, even if they use other money to do it, such as privately raised or state funds. This, of course, puts the clinics in a tough situation because they need the money, but it literally puts a gag on their freedom of speech. They are not even allowed to refer women to clinics where abortion services are available. This policy has not been proven to reduce the incidence of abortion globally; however, it has certainly eroded family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries.
Another example of the anti-choice agenda is the Hyde Amendment - a part of the federal budget - which serves to drastically restrict Medicaid funding for abortions. Medicaid provides health insurance for about 46 million low-income Americans, and an abortion can cost anywhere from $400 to $2,000. Needless to say, it's probably not a procedure that someone who qualifies for Medicaid can afford to pay out of pocket.
One complication of the Hyde Amendment is that it takes poor women longer to save up for a legal abortion, leading to a later-term abortion which is more expensive and places women at a higher risk for health complications. Add to that travel costs, since 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, and you can start to see that if you're a pregnant teen with limited financial means, abortion may be as inaccessible to you as if it were still illegal.
Teen pregnancy is a leading cause of poverty. However, the same legislators - and those that vote for them - who oppose sex education and choice don't support welfare funding to provide support for economically challenged families, either. Through policy like the Hyde Amendment, the poorest Americans are made even poorer when they are not able to exercise their reproductive rights.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The anti-abortion organization Justice for All is attempting to raise a debate using shock tactics and sensationalism. If students would just look at the skewed effects anti-choice policies have had in America and abroad, perhaps they would realize that spending public money to keep abortion safe, legal and rare would be a better approach. The majority of Americans are pro-choice, but the policies of the Bush administration, like the Hyde Amendment and the Global Gag Rule, are decidedly anti-choice, and it's your tax money that's paying for them.
Ambrosia Ortiz
UNM student
