A study released by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reveals Chelsea to have the highest abortion rate in New York City, with 67.23 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion.
Jamaica, Central Harlem, Greenwich Village, and Bedford-Stuyvesant also ranked high on the list. The neighborhood with the lowest abortion rate is the Upper East Side, which also happens to be Manhattan’s safest neighborhood as well.
Many of us will recognize the areas with high abortion rates as the neighborhoods that have the greatest poverty in New York City. This data tells us that high abortion frequency is closely tied to poverty and the dysfunction of poverty. The statistics are staggering. So are the stats for crime, high school drop out, welfare, prostitution, government assistance and drug use.
Too many people attempt to simplify abortion with poster soundbytes that very much appeal to our emotions. In the real world, the soundbytes become very silent when examined through the reality of poverty. If abortion was outlawed tomorrow, these same women would probably find someone to provide the service. That fact in itself is a real fear and one that chills pro-choice activists because illegal abortion kills and maims women.
If Roe vs Wade is overturned, NYC will probably pick right back up and rely on its own laws, as it did before Roe was codified by the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1973. It also means that NYC will again become the abortion Mecca for the eastern part of the United States. Abortion will instantly become less safe and will include more 2nd and third trimester procedures.
There are simply no easy answers here. Cognitive dissonance takes over when we are forced to accept that the very people who are trying to overturn Roe v Wade are also the very people who are trying to rein in spending on Medicaid, WIC, and other social programs that deal with economically disadvantaged people.
Is there a magic wand that makes all these unpleasantries go away?
Great post Moon. Poverty also equates to poor health care. Planned Parenthood IS the stopgap for many of these women and much needed prevention. I suggest that more outreach be done to prevent pregnancy, and not driven by religion, but by science. I would also wonder what the high school drop out rate is in this area. I’ll bet its astronomical. A vicious cycle for sure.
@Elena, when I saw the article I was reminded of how many people simply look at simple solutions for very complex social problems. The issue extends well beyond a ‘choose life’ solution.
A very good argument can be made that the social programs you mention create a cycle of dependance that extends poverty. So I do not necessarily see a contradiction between trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and trying to rein in spending on social programs.
@Kelly, there is no contradiction if starving children is the desired outcome.
I would question how many of the people who want to overturn Roe and cut out support services have ever known anyone who could be described as being in a culture of poverty.
Do you honestly think that just doing nothing is going to solve the problem? 🙄
I have to come back here….let’s hear this very good argument. Tell me how forcing women to have children and then denying the children milk from the WIC program iand basic health care is going to break the cycle of poverty.
I understand that if they starve to death and die that they will no longer be a burder to society but that seems a little drastic to even me.
To be fair is the argument that Planned Parenthood exists or that it uses taxpayer monies to do it’s job? Because I think most people – while not supportive of abortion – have less of a leg to stand on when it’s not their money being used to do it. If PP is a private organization and uses only private money to accomplish it’s mission that’s wholly different than putting a spear to my throat to exact monies that could be used to rear my children to abort a fetus.
As a private company I have no issue with PP. If PP uses government money to do something I as a taxpayer can then tell it what to do and what it cannot do.
I was going to post in the main thread but I think Kelly’s point make this link more appropriate here.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/09/whats-more-important-for-succe
Tea Party Supporters, Democrats, Pure Independents, and non-Tea Party Republicans vary substantially in their assumptions and values.
Now hear this: It is illegal to provide abortion with public money. Hyde amendment.
The Hyde amendment has been in effect for thirty some years.
PP provides medical services and very often the money being paid to them is for medicaid reimbursement for said medical services that do NOT include abortion. I fail to see why it matters who gets reimbursed for services provided as long as they are legal services that fall under the provisions of medicaid.
poll response in open thread. I decided I shouldn’t contribute to deflecting a topic.
http://prolifeaction.org/faq/abortion.php#demography
Selected a pro life site ito underline:
– 87% of the women are not married
– most are minorities
– most already have children
What this site doesn’t note is that most are poor and, when surveyed,
state a major reason for their abortion is lack of resources to care for
another child. The slashing of basic social services leads to more abortions
– not less.
Pro-life before AND after birth.
MH, I wasn’t making a Hyde Amendment argument. Rather I was saying that if the government is funding a private organization then should it not have more control over what that organization does?
Big Dog, what about people like me that are pro-choice but against government picking up the tab for both abortions and social programs? The way I view it is – its your choice to have a baby or not and my choice to not fund your decision either way.
That’s the way it is. There is no public funding of abortion.
What if the government is funding a private organization? Should the govt acquire ownership of what a private physician who takes medicare and medicaid patients and gets refunded for services?
Big Dog brings up a critical part of the equation. Where is the AFTER birth? Too often it is missing. This is not the time to start skimping. It does no good to say the skimping doesn’t happen. Poor women see it long before we do.
I am still waiting for Kelly to come back and tell us the convincing argument.
The argument is that increasing welfare leads to increased poverty, increased number of abortions, and increased number of violent crimes. There is also recognition that culture that leads to poverty and government payments cannot do much to alleviate poverty until these behaviors change. Finally, the definition of poverty has been re-defined upward so that many considered impoverished now would not have been when the war on poverty began.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6698
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/expanding-the-failed-war-on-poverty-obamas-2011-budget-increases-welfare-spending-to-historic-levels
First we have to differentiate between acute poverty, generational poverty and poverty that stems from breakdown of institutions like marriage.
Acute poverty might happen because of job loss or illness. People get back on their feet when they return to work or get well. Public assistance often helps.
Breakdown poverty (my words not anyone else’s) might happen because of divorce and a spouse refuses to make regular child support payments. Often spouses aren’t at the top of their game and need to re-educate so skills are fresh. Deadbeat parents need to be relocated. Public assistance often helps. Seniors might fall into this category also if they don’t have adequate resources to cover expenses. Very often women who have not spent careers in jobs outside the home fall in to this category.
Gnerational poverty is different and speaks a different language. It is a complex issue and cannot be reduced to sound-bytes.
There will always be a war on poverty. The best cures for it are education and jobs. Now allow me to be politically incorrect. People need to physically remove themselves from the culture of poverty to beat it, in my opinion.
Kelly, I fail to see why overturning Roe and cutting off all safety nets is going to help people break the cycle of poverty. I don’t think you have made a very convincing argument.
Are you suggesting that more children should be added to already stressed single family parents? Who will support these children and if all the safety nets are removed, what will keep them from starving?
A good microcosm of poverty that brings about less hysteria is looking at the American Indian living on a reservation. There is so much poverty on a level that is almost impossible for east coast people to phathom on some of the western reservations.
There are few places on the east coast where people don’t even have electricity. It is fairly common place on some reservations. It is common on the Navajo reservation, although not in all areas (The navajo nation is very large). How do we even start talking about poverty a culture where electricity doesn’t exist in many homes?
Will putting in electricity solve all the problems? Of course not. To get to the root of the problems for native Americans one has to go back 1 century, 2 centuries, etc to talk about what went wrong and how various lies and broken promises set things in a downward spiral. We can’t leave out abrupt social change and end to a way of life on a cataclysmic level. Other cultures have faced change but not to this degree.
I contribute a small amount monthly to a Catholic school in South Dakota. St Joseph’s Indian school takes in kids who live in dysfunctional homes and educates them and provides food, clothing, shelter, and an artificial ‘family’ where they can grow to maturity. The reason I chose this school is because they value the Lakota culture and make sure the children learn to value from whence they came. Too many social do-gooders in the past tried to stomp out everything Indian in the name of charity and assimilation. St. Joseph does not do this and Father Stephen seems to love and adore these kids. I am not the type to donate to Catholic charities so these folks are doing something right. Just thought I would give them a bit of recognition.
http://stjo.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_our_school
MH, can you clarify #11. I’m not sure what you mean to answer it.
What needs clarification Marinm. The hyde amendment states that government money cannot be used for abortions. Now, I imagine that if a woman on medicaid is going to die if she carries her fetus to term, then medicaid would probably pay for it. I know first had of a case where if this woman were to become pregnant, it would trigger a stroke in all liklihood.
Poverty is a huge problem, my godfather won a pullizter prize for his work as a reporter on the very issue of poverty and welfare in the 60’s, I will read his book and get back to everyone.
Elena, this is confusing to me.
“What if the government is funding a private organization? Should the govt acquire ownership of what a private physician who takes medicare and medicaid patients and gets refunded for services?”
I think the above sentence is missing a few words.
Elena, also see #10. I’m not making a Hyde argument.
Another way of looking at this is.. A lot of people have heartache over the government giving faith based orgs money because it could filter down to religion. How is the money controlled? What restrictions does the govt put in? Auditing?
My point is not why does some many go to PP but rather why does ANY money go to it.
@Moon-howler
I am not advocating overturning Roe to break the cycle of poverty. I advocate overturning Roe because it intrudes on states rights. If it is overturned and then NY decides to allow it, then so be it. The Feds should mute on the subject.
I also do not advocate cutting off safety nets. I take issue with the unlimited nature of these programs. In order to prevent long-term dependency, the program should require the recipient to search for a job (or undergo training) and set a time limit on the period tha aid can be received.
Having volunteered time and money at a specific charity, my observation is that in-kind assistance is much more effective than money. Food ensures that children are fed. Money enables people with certain issues/behaviors to continue on a destructive path. Since government programs usually only provide $$, the cycle of restructive behavior is almost always enabled by the government.
Kelly,
States rights was decided aound 1864 I believe……………..
Kelly,
I recommend “The handmaids Tale” by Margarette Atwood, great book on this subject.
Aren’t those job training programs the very ones that Republicans wants to cut? I watched a great special on welfare moms trying to get off the government “payroll”. It was very challenging, from healthcare to daycare, it was almost not worth getting a job. There was little interum assistance to help these moms get over the hump from welfare to independence.
I would rather overturn the 2nd amendment and let the states decide. How does that go down? Not so well? Didn’t think so.
The states rights thing was decided a long time ago. There cannot be a patchwork of laws that involve basic rights. Should gun rights vary from state to state? Should people have to go to another state to get birth control? Doesn’t that sort of smack of Taliban to you?
I don’t disagree about people having to search for work or undergo training. It only makes sense that behavior should change. Bill Clinton signed legislation that emphasised this kind of change.
I also agree about not handing out loose change to people. I don’t agree that most govt. programs just hand over money. HUD doesn’t do that. WIC and SCHIPS don’t involve cash. Job retraining doesn’t involve money. Medicaid doesn’t involve money. And they shouldn’t for the very reasons you stated.
Okay … This is my last post on the topic. I have to travel tomorrow.
The 2nd Amendment exists ….. because it was ratified by the states. If you want abortion as a legal, federally protected basic right, then make it an amendment and get it ratified by the States. Until that happens, Roe can be overturned and therefore is not a basic right.
The Civil War ended in 1865 and established the primacy of the federal government, but it did not abolish limitations on federal power hat were to the states.
As for payments by the government, I can come up with many, many programs that involve cash payments. For instance, HUD has a rental assistance program that provides cash. Medicaid has a program that pays cash to family members who are supposed to be caregivers for the primary recipient.
Last, I have read “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Just about every well-read adult I know has read that book. Perhaps I should suggest some books that might expand your horizon. How about “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand?
@Kelly, I should have said repealed. Of course the 2nd amendment won’t be overturned. However, I got the desired reaction. You found my suggestion completely unacceptable, as you should have. I find overturning Roe completely unacceptable. It is established law.
I believe Roe v Wade is as much a basic right as Griswald vs Conn. or Brown vs Board of Ed. All were codified by the Court and have been accepted as standing law. The states should not have the choice of accepting or not accepting these decisions. These cases define the law of the land.
I have read both Atlas Shrugged and The Handmaid’s Tale many years ago. So???? I wish I had the time back. I didn’t like either of them.
As for Medicaid and cash, the cash to family members is not quite how that works. In the first place, it is done to save money. It doesn’t have to be just for family members. It keeps people from being institutionalized in nursing homes. It allows seniors to live semi independent lives in their own homes. Consider the money paid a salary. There is considerable oversight involved. The states govern this plan. I am not sure that HUD gives people cash. I know it lowers the rental on homes. I am not sure this is always a good thing either. I don’t think either of those examples have been fife with fraud.
Back to your original point….which safety net programs would you get rid of and what would recipients do to replace them?
What you don’t realize about me is, you are so quick to brand me as some sort of liberal do-gooder than you don’t realize that the liberals won’t have me.
Oh. My. God. YOu equate individual choice, the right to determine one’s self-destiny AND Right to have a say in how your body will be used…..is…a BAD thing?
Honey, you have no clue.
Let’s see…Ceaucescu’s Romania – no birth control, socialist state and all abortions illegal….yeah, those were some good “pro-life” policies whereby when Ceaucescu was assasinated his “choose life” programs left thousands of Romanian children homeless because the state could no longer pay. Look up Romania’s underground children.
Or let’s have a look at the other side – El Salvador where all abortions – even to save a woman’s life – are illegal (thanks to good “christain” support from the Vatican (yeah we know how much they “like” the kiddies….)). Maternal mortality from illegal abortion is one of the leading causes of death in women there….but hey, so long as “da baybeez iz born!!!” it’s all good. Life – where quality is nothing compared to QUANTITY.
On the flipside, if RvW is overturned (anmd to do so they would have to revoke the 13trh ammendment AND overturn Griswold V Connecticut), keep this in mind – a state that can compel you to gestate can also compel you to abort. YOU have no choice in the matter. Just ask Chinese women how they feel about neighborhood abortion squads and coerced abortions when THEY do NOT WANT to abort.
Good lord…and you morons who complain about tax money for abortions….like MH said – HYDE AMMENDMENT PEOPLE.
Frankly I have a HUGE issue for my tax money to go to the forced birth “crisis” centers whereby MY TAX MONEY is given to religious assholes who care zip for the “baybeez they save” just so long as their political agenda is carried out. A pack of free diapers is nice, and directions to the welfare office helpful….but they don’t raise a kid or cover maternity costs now do they? If you don’t want an abortion and can use their services, GREAT! But if you want one and are lured into their fake medical fronts, they take your info and harass you whether you have an abortion or not. And if you do – expect extra harassment from the good ol’ chreestins” out there. So yeah, I think *I* should have a say in that, but thing is, my tax moeny goezs to many things of which I don’t approve, so who the hell is someone who *ASSumes* Planned Parenthood is the abortion cash machine siphoning their tax money and corrupting their kids is BEYOND me. Who the F are you to demand your “beliefs” be met via tax expendetures, but MINE denied? Fund them both or NEITHER.
Oh and Kelly….Heritage Foundation link? Could you get any more biased than that? They are as sympathetic to women as the Easter Bunny lays eggs….
My right to bodily autonomy, self-determination and medical safety are not a state’s issue. They affect every American woman – regardless of the choice she makes – and as such are NOT a state’s rights issue. If they are, then so is the 19th ammendment. The right to limit one’s family, the right to choose when and IF you become pregnant, the right to decide IF you volunteer your body for pregnancy….that is up to no state to decide. It is up to the individual woman herself. No amount of 1960’s “States rights” Southern Strategy crap makes it any different.
Drivel and self-absorbing crap. That and Rand was a turdtastic “writer” who…despite her stanch individualistic ways…didn’t refuse her SS check when she came of age. Oh the irony….