- checking login information
The Women's Rights Cause
395,912 people care about Women's Rights
Loading...UPDATE: 28 Women Forced To Find Funds Overnight for Abortions Due To D.C. Funding Ban
UPDATE: This tweet appeared at about 9PM EDT Thursday: We made it! All 28 wmn were seen! SO much support coming in still $14k+ had come in at 6pm or so & number was climbing. Read here to see how it all started:
Imagine that you had a surgery scheduled, and were called the night before to be told that your insurance was denied and now you must pay for the entire thing out of pocket? Even worse, imagine that you were already struggling to make ends meet, and that time was of the essence to have it performed?
For 28 women in D.C., that was exactly what happened, as each was called and informed that due to the negotiations in Congress, they would no longer have any financial assistance for their already scheduled abortions, and they needed to provide a full payment for the procedure.
Via a D.C. Abortion Fund emergency alert:
Tonight we received an urgent call from a partner clinic to notify us that DC Medicaid is ending its coverage of abortions at MIDNIGHT TONIGHT.
The clinic had to call 28 women who are scheduled tomorrow and bringing their DC Medicaid as payment that they need to fundraise for the total cost of their procedure by their appointment tomorrow because Medicaid will no longer cover the cost of their abortion.
These women are devastated. We need your support NOW.
The clinic has asked if the DC Abortion Fund could pay for a percentage of the cost of all 28 abortions scheduled tomorrow slated to be covered by DC Medicaid, all of which cost several hundreds of dollars.
We never want to turn a single woman away – and now these 28 women need us.
The 28 women have only a few short hours to fundraise for their procedures tomorrow, because for many of them the total cost will be out of reach.
The loss of federal funding for abortions in D.C. to many seemed like a small price to pay in order to keep intact millions of dollars in Title X funds to assist with contraception and reproductive health care. But for these 28 women who are already struggling financially, the ban has the potential to literally change their entire lives.
Denying a woman the right to a legal abortion literally because she cannot afford to get one? Is somehow making her give birth going to help her financially?
Why do only those with money have the right to decide when and if they want to have a child, and the ones the most financially burdened by pregnancy and birth the ones who are being forced out of any other options?
Read more: abortion, budget, d.c. federal funding, reproductive health, reproductive rights, title x, war on women, war_on_women, womens rights
Photo: By Photographer was Eternalsleeper at en.wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Thanks for the info.
Nice one ,,,Thanks....
BP=BS
meet our writers
129 comments
+ add your ownJenna look what you just wrote
"Govt assistance helped and then I went to university"
and then you say
"If you can't be responsible with your own body, don't expect the tax payers to pay for your mistakes."
So its ok for the taxpayer to assist you in your time of need but not other women?
@Breyden W. Well it sickens ME that many women would rather kill a baby than give it away. That's just selfish all the way around.
And before you tell me to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, let me just that I am a mother. I had my son at 19 years old with no idea how I was going to provide for him. Govt assistance helped and then I went to university. He's well taken care of now.
I'm sick of the excuses. If you can't be responsible with your own body, don't expect the tax payers to pay for your mistakes. Abortions are almost never a necessary medical procedure. If you can't handle giving a baby up for adoption, then don't get pregnant. It's that simple.
P.S. This does not refer to rape or incest victims. That is an entirely different story.
Supported.
I've put my two cents in before in this infected discussion and only want to add a few things.
I'm a firm believer that stupidity is inherited so I do hope Amber M. is practicing abstinence her whole life.
Further more, there's a hidden agenda in the repukes and teabags attacks on women. Take away the right to abortion and force women to breed workers and soliders.
Workers for the unhealthy mines, factories and other polluting production areas the politicians, bought and payed for, will provide for their corporate friends, by removing all protective legislation.
Soldiers for the many wars that will follow, as none of the present rightwing politrukes will end our dependency on petroleum products and therefore will engage in warfare against those countries that have control of that energy resource.
You don't honestly believe that the rightwing are doing all this for religious reasons, do you? Think for yourself, read all about every issue in independant forums, discuss with friends and on websites like Care2, get informed and then come back and join me in the struggle against the forces of evil that will destroy every single human right for one thing only: Greed!
No abortion provider can accept federal funding outside of insurance. It's an actual law.
If you really want to bitch about people sucking up your money, deal with the lazy bastards that are KEEPING their little welfare babies. They're way, WAY more numerous, and cost the taxpayers way, WAAAAAY more money.
And keep your god the -hell- out of my legislation, or I will pull the religion card, and please believe no one will be happy then.
And all the arguments are based on the exceptions rather than the rule. You say that nine times out of ten, the man can just walk away? Not if he ever wants to be able to work again without having his wages garnered for child support. And if you want to talk about things being imbalanced, show me a single case where a mother pays child support to a father who wanted kids when she didn't.
The fact of the matter is that there IS no way to balance this, there IS no way for us to make this sort of this fall under a single, blanket concept. There WILL be exceptions to EVERY rule, and there WILL be people who don't like it. I am, personally, pro life, but I am politically pro-choice. But I am NOT, personally OR politically, pro-free-ride.
Do I think women who are raped should be offered abortion as an option, either with a morning-after pill (which is ideal, IMO) or whatever is appropriate at the time? Of course. They shouldn't be forced to carry the baby of their rapist. But statistics show that of the reported abortions, only .5% are from rape. Even if you say that only 1 out of 10 women who are raped and get pregnant admit it, that is STILL only 5%. What about the other 95%?
For every action, there are risks, responsible or not. If a boxer gets into the ring, he risks his nose getting broken. He protects himself by using boxing gloves, but there is still the risk.
The concept is comparable. Take an action, take the risk.
Why is it automatically assumed these women are irresponsible? Sure men have children they don't want but they don't have to deal with the entire process of having the child. Nine times out of ten the man can just walk off hands clean. Yes there are laws popping up that now prevent a man from doing that but there are many places they can. They also are just as capable of making sure this never happens. However saying that these women took a risk because they knew their birth control could fail frankly in unfair. 98% chance and it fails on you, that's not being irresponsible. That's just getting screwed by the number and it's unfair to make a woman who is not emotionally or financially prepared to have a child unable to access the course of action they choose due to money issues.
We are also not taking into consideration women who have been sexually assaulted. Were they irresponsible? Should they be forced to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for being assaulted and made to suffer and instead forced to carry the child of their rapist? The whole abstinence argument only goes so far when you take into consideration certain situations.
Give every woman a hysterectomy. Voila! Nothing to worry about.
Logic, if you please. It takes two to tango, and women aren't the only ones who have children they don't necessarily want.
Remove every man's penis. Voila. Nothing to worry about.
By the way, I stand corrected as to my ratio for the cost of the shot as opposed to the cost of an abortion; I remembered the cost being much cheaper than my wife just informed me it was. it *is* still cheaper, but not by the same amount.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment
20