Why are Republicans and Democrats so split on abortion? Anyone who knows about politics in the United States knows that Democrats are pro choice while Republicans are pro life. As a Republican however, I believe in pro choice. Pro choice is backed by facts that show how abortion affects women and children living in America. Abortion is no longer used in teenage white women whose future could be derailed by teen pregnancy. Abortion is becoming more of a thing used by rape victims or women living below or around the national poverty line. With that being said, it is important that abortion or contraceptives remains, and becomes, more available for women living in poverty in the United States.
A general stereotype of abortion would be that the majority of women who receive an abortion are single white women under the age of twenty. That may have been the case in the 1970’s when white women, under the age of twenty, accounted for 33 percent of all abortions (Marcotte, 2). However, in 2010, that number had dropped to 18 percent and is continuing to decline. The total amount of abortions has declined mightily since the 1970’s and is going in the right direction for middle-aged women or women under twenty that are financially stable. In contrast, women who are economically challenged have experienced an almost 20 percent increase in abortions since 2000 (USCCB). These facts show that women who are economically disadvantaged are faced with the choice of abortion more than their middle class counterparts. To be considered poor in the United States, the yearly income must be $11,200 or less for single parent homes. To be considered economically disadvantaged in the United States a family must live off $18,500 a year or less (Marcotte, 1). On average, women who are considered poor or economically disadvantaged account for 69 percent of abortions (Marcotte, 2). The reason abortion rates are so high in economically disadvantaged women is because they have lost access to contraceptives provided by government assistance (Marcotte, 2). If lower income women had access to contraceptives their abortion rate would be cut in half. The scariest thing about pregnancy for women who don’t have funds to cover an abortion is the method in which they receive an abortion or what happens after the child is born. First, many poor women seek out abortions later in the second or third trimester (Boonstra). This means that the abortion is more dangerous and leads to health concerns. Some of the methods sought out by these women are pills sold on the streets that aren’t FDA approved or even going as far as to have an abortion done by someone who is not certified. These methods can lead to health problems, failed attempts, or even death in some cases. All of this could be prevented if the woman had more access to insurance that would cover the cost of her abortion. Women who live near or under the poverty line may account for 69 percent of all abortions in the United States but that number could be even higher. The Hyde Amendment states that federal dollars cannot be used to help with abortions or contraband if those women are on Medicaid. In the United States over 90 percent of all people have health insurance. The problem with this amendment is that an abortion would cost these women a third of their monthly income (Boonstra). Without insurance or any sort of alternative to pay for an abortion, 60 percent of women that are poor are denied the rights to abortion. This leads to 67 percent of those women relying on public assistance less than a year later (Sankin). This adds more and more government dollars going to support these women, which then increases the national …show more content…
The argument states that these women may have lifelong regrets after receiving the abortion (Lowen). Earlier on in this essay that argument was debunked by facts that show women under twenty only receive 18 percent of abortions (Marcotte, 2). This shows that the argument of youth and immaturity is more based on stereotypes and not facts. I believe that if pro-life advocates knew more about the positives of abortion they would be more likely to accept abortion as a positive thing then to denounce it as a
A general stereotype of abortion would be that the majority of women who receive an abortion are single white women under the age of twenty. That may have been the case in the 1970’s when white women, under the age of twenty, accounted for 33 percent of all abortions (Marcotte, 2). However, in 2010, that number had dropped to 18 percent and is continuing to decline. The total amount of abortions has declined mightily since the 1970’s and is going in the right direction for middle-aged women or women under twenty that are financially stable. In contrast, women who are economically challenged have experienced an almost 20 percent increase in abortions since 2000 (USCCB). These facts show that women who are economically disadvantaged are faced with the choice of abortion more than their middle class counterparts. To be considered poor in the United States, the yearly income must be $11,200 or less for single parent homes. To be considered economically disadvantaged in the United States a family must live off $18,500 a year or less (Marcotte, 1). On average, women who are considered poor or economically disadvantaged account for 69 percent of abortions (Marcotte, 2). The reason abortion rates are so high in economically disadvantaged women is because they have lost access to contraceptives provided by government assistance (Marcotte, 2). If lower income women had access to contraceptives their abortion rate would be cut in half. The scariest thing about pregnancy for women who don’t have funds to cover an abortion is the method in which they receive an abortion or what happens after the child is born. First, many poor women seek out abortions later in the second or third trimester (Boonstra). This means that the abortion is more dangerous and leads to health concerns. Some of the methods sought out by these women are pills sold on the streets that aren’t FDA approved or even going as far as to have an abortion done by someone who is not certified. These methods can lead to health problems, failed attempts, or even death in some cases. All of this could be prevented if the woman had more access to insurance that would cover the cost of her abortion. Women who live near or under the poverty line may account for 69 percent of all abortions in the United States but that number could be even higher. The Hyde Amendment states that federal dollars cannot be used to help with abortions or contraband if those women are on Medicaid. In the United States over 90 percent of all people have health insurance. The problem with this amendment is that an abortion would cost these women a third of their monthly income (Boonstra). Without insurance or any sort of alternative to pay for an abortion, 60 percent of women that are poor are denied the rights to abortion. This leads to 67 percent of those women relying on public assistance less than a year later (Sankin). This adds more and more government dollars going to support these women, which then increases the national …show more content…
The argument states that these women may have lifelong regrets after receiving the abortion (Lowen). Earlier on in this essay that argument was debunked by facts that show women under twenty only receive 18 percent of abortions (Marcotte, 2). This shows that the argument of youth and immaturity is more based on stereotypes and not facts. I believe that if pro-life advocates knew more about the positives of abortion they would be more likely to accept abortion as a positive thing then to denounce it as a