Posted on 01/03/2015 8:29:23 PM PST by Morgana
Clinic worker Jenny Higgins says that wealthy women get better abortion care than poor women do. She says:
“… We almost never service wealthier women at the clinics where I worked. In the southeastern clinic, which was in an urban area, the majority of the clients were African-American….. [Wealthy women] are more likely to have access to higher quality, private abortion care, either due to their insurance plans or because they can afford to pay out-of-pocket for such services.”
….
“Even though I prided myself on providing attentive and empathic care to the patients with whom I worked, the clinic infrastructure and patient overload prohibited the kind of service that members of the middle and upper classes have come to expect – or the kind of care I had received at relatively posh student health centers or private gynecologist offices.”
Jenny Higgins “Sex, Unintended Pregnancy, and Poverty: One Woman’s Evolution from “Choice” to “Reproductive Justice” in Krista Jacob. Abortion under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice (Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006) 37-38
....”So what is the motivation for seeking an abortion?”....
Regardless of anyones “motive”...bottom line is they don’t ‘want’ a baby. Period.
There it is.
Yes...unfortunately.
That’s it exactly...
Still true no matter what business....you get what you pay for in the location you get it. Location matters.
However attempting to paint the killing of babies as “better” because the location is clinically better....the end is still the same...it’s a bloody murderous business!
I’ll alos add...we would have these butcher shops if it weren’t for woman who demand them in the first place.
I’m currently supported by an NIH grant in Women’s Health Disparities Research (K12 HD055894).
“Sex, Unintended Pregnancy, and Poverty: One Woman’s Evolution from “Choice” to “Reproductive Justice” in Krista Jacob. Abortion under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice
I find the transition from "Choice" to "Reproductive Justice" an odd advocacy. It would seem to me that choice brings with it things like the responsibility for the consequences for that choice or its requirements - like paying for it. One could argue that the "choice" to which she refers to is health related and that it is now an ObamaCare right, but the fact that choice is involved puts it down on the side of desire, not need, at least in my opinioni. Further, adding the "Reproductive Justice" tag to it seems to be just pseudo-legal gobbledygook.
I guess she has to talk and think like this if she wants to keep her government grants.
Indeed. I’d love to see the news/talk show that allows a commentator actually say that on air.
They expected quality, on what Medicaid pays?
Even the wealthy cannot afford to have themselves sterilized?
Reproductive justice requires that men who will never personally require maternity care or other gynecological services must still fund them through their insurance plans because (and it is stated as such), ‘he’ MAY get someone pregnant someday.
It’s actually about redistributing wealth (beyond cost-sharing) and as Obamacare has been ruled a tax, taxing/billing for services that are never rendered.
Yes....it is really ALL about the money, isn’t it?
“Reproductive justice requires that men who will never personally require maternity care or other gynecological services must still fund them through their insurance plans because (and it is stated as such), ‘he’ MAY get someone pregnant someday.”
In all fairness he may have a wife/girlfriend who might get pregnant.
If one watches the Maury Show then you know he may have a wife and several girls friends at any given time that may be her baby’s daddy.
One dude in Tennessee has fathered 27? babies by 14 women. So yea I see why they want men to pay for this.
Is there anything they don't want men to pay for?
But those 14 women already pay for (and use) female care and the baby daddy is on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Subdivided 27 ways doesn’t go far but we don’t have debtors’ prisons anymore.
The only other case that is remotely similar (in a weird way) is funding of schools through property taxes. Here, while many property owners do no have children, they are required to pay because of the public benefit of having educated children citizens. Even smoking (or the dangers of) is punished by extremely high taxes - on those that smoke.
In the case of abortion and the potential for a man to father children willy nilly, there are other avenues of redress and compensation. That’s what paternity tests, court support orders and the like are for. In this case, a typical male (all males, in fact) is considered ‘guilty’ before a baby is even allowed to make it into this world or before they even begin to think about fathering one. In this case, it is a crime even before it is committed.
If we humans want to boil it down to pure cost and potential costs, then there are a lot more eggs in that basket that liberals will eventually get around to if they are allowed to consolidate their power to its ultimate state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.