A new Missouri law that went into effect August 28 mandates that all abortion providers must give women information on alternatives to abortion at their clinics. The new language mandated by the law informs women that the state of Missouri will help them if they choose to give birth rather than terminate pregnancy.
But is that a promise, or is it false advertising?
The new language reads: "There are public and private agencies willing and able to help you
carry
your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is
born,
whether you choose to keep your child or place him or her for adoption.
The
state of Missouri encourages you to contact those agencies before making
a final
decision about abortion. State law requires that your physician or a
qualified
professional give you the opportunity to call agencies like these before
you
undergo an abortion."
So the state of Missouri will help new mothers afford parenthood, huh? Not according to the stats from the Mid-America Research Council's Metropolitan Council on Early Learning. According to the "policy issues" page on its website, Missouri is ranked 49th in the nation in childcare assistance funding.
"Once a baby is born, women are pretty much on their own," says Ruth Ehresman, the director of health and budget policy for the Missouri Budget Project. Unemployed moms can be eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (aka "welfare"), which equals $292 a month for a family of three. If the mother or her spouse works, that amount is reduced. There's a five-year lifetime limit on this support, so it maxes out quickly. As Ehresman puts it, "It is negligible support."
According to data collected by the Metropolitan Council on Early Learning, the average cost of infant care is $10,000 a year. Center-based pre-school care runs an average of $7,000 a year.
Now, what if a new mom wants to go back to work, rather than trying to survive on $292 a month? The federal poverty level for a family of three is $1,526 a month, or $18,310 a year. The state of Missouri provides childcare assistance to families who make at or under 127 percent of the federal poverty level, or $23,254 a year (that's $1,202 a month). But it's not a free ride -- parents who get state aid are still required to pay a co-pay for childcare services.
If a mother earns more than $23,254 a year, she is completely ineligible for any of the state's childcare assistance funds. Ehresman says she's heard anecdotal stories about working moms turning down raises so that they don't lose their state childcare subsidies. "They are, in effect, locked into low-paying jobs," Ehresman says.
The fine print on state-mandated abortion alternatives says Missouri's got your back, expectant moms. But guess what? Even the fine print has fine print.
Photo (and baby) courtesy of Dave Buchwald, via Flickr
Showing 1-8 of 8
I did not get from this blog that taxpayers should raise people's children. What I did see was a very valid point that funded childcare would make the abortion decision less desireable. The women are locked into low paying jobs because they are unable to return to school or even finish there current education path and support a new child at the same time. Taxpayers pay millions to CRC's which do advertise child aid to expectant mothers - however a CRC publication called At the Center states:
The mission of pregnancy help centers is to reach abortion-minded women and provide them with life-affirming alternatives to abortion. However, many centers are acknowledging frustration over the fact that their ministries are becoming more social welfare agencies than cutting-edge forces to reduce abortion.
That's an issue, the taxpayers are already paying to help these children but there funds are being misused by "clinics" that do not seem to want to deal with you if you want to keep the child. CRC's and PRC's even have you jump through hoops in order to receive this free support (remember the taxpayers have already payed for it) such as attending mandatory weekly bible studies, volunteering at local churches or the clinic itself, distributing propaganda for the PRC. That is not how I want my tax dollars spent.
Sorry to go a little off topic but the two posts below kinda irked me. And they do receive goverment funding State and Federal.
Oh good to know all the states political officials will each adopt several unwanted babies.
'Pro-life' fight so hard and spend so much to make sure the babies are born.
Now you all should step-up and adopt those kids you wanted born.
Strange Missouri puts the same thoughts about human babies as they do with their puppy mills. Missouri wants their puppy-mills to 'have the right' to produce a gazillion puppies a year with no thoughts to humane conditions or the pups futures.
Same with Missouri human babies.
Missouri there needs to be some kind of future. If you want these humans and puppies to flood the state..you have to care for them!
It is far fetched for the author to mis-interpret "there are ... agencies willing to help you" as a promise that the said agencies will fully pay for ALL baby-related expenses.
It appears that the author is an abortion advocate who doesn't really believe in choice, contrary to what most pro-abortion people claim.
"There are public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or place him or her for adoption"
That's where she got that they were going to help after the child is born and help it be raised. And I think instead of this arguement about what to do after a baby is conceive we need to focus on making sure people are educated before they get pregnant/get others pregnant. Yes, that includes contraception and making it aware just how someone gets pregnant.
Also, taxes should be put to help others including mothers with children. Maybe if we let the government step in with funds instead of screaming "socialism" we'd have more regulations and options so women wouldn't be locked into low paying jobs because the raise would force them to give up the government aid that lets them scrape by when added to what they already have and take on a job pay that would mean that literally half of their salary goes straight to the child instead of health care, the home, food, savings, etc.
I believe that the physician should let you know of other options, but lets be honest: no one finds out they're pregnant and runs to the clinic to get their uterus scraped. They cry and try to figure out what this means for them, their loved ones, and the baby. And they don't let you walk in and just do it, you have to make appointments and be counseled. And for the women who have children at a young age or simply can't afford them adoption isn't always an option. There are thousands of unwanted children in our orphanages and living on the streets as proof of that. Who's helping them?
My suspicion is that Nadia is TRYING to sound as fucking stuipid as possible. There is no way she can be THAT clueless. So she has to be playing some kind of weird role on the internet. Something that blog "writers" have to do sometimes since they have no REAL writing skills.
NOWHERE does it say they are going to help women raise hte child (nor SHOULD taxpayers do that.) It VERY clearly is tlaking about adoption.
Please Nadia...realize that YOU look bad from this article. Your credibility was shot to hell. (Not that you had any to begin with...after all...you are a blog writer) No one takes you seriously anymore.
"Crisis pregnancy centers and the like do not run on government funding. They provide quite a bit of assistance to mothers in need."
Uhhhm ok...feel free to define what you mean by 'quite a bit'. Way to completely NOT expand on exactly what, when, how much and how long these prgrams provide support. Funny how you left those details out but managed to focus on 'bedroom exploits' which ISNT the issue here.
You have somewhat misrepresented what the new language is saying.
It isn't only government-assisted options that the language is referring to. Crisis pregnancy centers and the like do not run on government funding. They provide quite a bit of assistance to mothers in need. Nice try at some spin, though.
Besides that, I always find it humorous when pro-choicers who protest at the "government being in their bedrooms" expect taxpayers to take care of the results of those bedroom exploits, either through funding abortion, funding contraception, or by supporting them financially if they choose to raise their children.
"They are, in effect, locked into low-paying jobs," Ehresman says.
That is exactly the mentality that has turned this country into what it is today. Why do the taxpayer's consistently have to support people who DO NOT WANT to support themselves. It isn't fair to the taxpayers and it is bankrupting our country. If one cannot afford to raise a child, don't get pregnant or give the child up to someone who won't keep the perpetual cycle of living off the government going.
like
dislike
