The proposed bills H2399 and S1470 would require public universities of Massachusetts to provide medication abortion, also known as medical or chemical abortion, to students with allocated funds in the form of grants.
Yet again for abortion proponents abortion is the only answer to show “support” for these students working for a higher education.
How does this single-minded approach encourage education? Why is abortion the only option women are given? They present chemical abortion options to these students for “convenience,” which I would argue is even more likely to keep them from attaining their degree.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Many women would love to keep their baby provided they have the proper support to do so. Pregnancy help organizations are always there for women and provide valuable services, assistance and support, but why is pushing public funds toward abortion always the answer for some?
Abortion is but one possible outcome. Likewise, the entire foundation these bills are based upon is the assumption that all women would choose chemical abortion, which is not true. It is small-minded to assume all women discovering they’re pregnant would immediately jump to the chemical abortion pill, especially since not all women can even take it due to pre-existing medical conditions and family medical history.
So then, logic requires those managing these resources to provide support and finances for all viable options.
These bills were introduced earlier this year and after having been referred to legislative committees there’s not been further action.
Rather than moving forward with them I submit a different route, to create a program with social workers and local adoption agencies; give them extra grants to help care for mother and baby and place the baby in a loving home.
These other options - adoption, and supporting a woman through her pregnancy and delivery - aren’t fatal.
However, there are major risks to these young women with the chemical abortion that is being pushed:
“-Incomplete abortion (which may then require a surgical abortion)
-Infection called clostridium sordellii – (Signs of infection: sore, tenderness in belly, weakness, nausea, vomiting, fever lasting over 24 hours)
-Fever
-Digestive system discomfort”
Those who opt for chemical abortion are four times more likely to need medical help afterwards than with the surgical abortion.
If something goes wrong during a chemical abortion, these women become ill, sometimes even fatally, then we lose the baby and the mother. Missing classes and not graduating are suddenly a non sequitur when lives are at stake. Why even take that risk when there are so many other alternatives, alternatives which would save the mother and baby?
With chemical abortion women are typically left to have cramps, heavy bleeding and often birthing fully-formed babies in their toilets and bathtubs, alone. That is what universities wish to offer to their young people, as though they can be expected to be in class like normal by Monday. To experience trauma, death and loss alone, before they’re even old enough to have a four-year degree. Young people deserve better.
How is this safe to provide to college women as if it is a line for fast food?
Given that infertility affects one out of every six couples, there’s no question a young woman facing an unexpected pregnancy would have ample options for placing her child with a loving family. But the costs for adoptive couples can be prohibitive. We need to work to make adoption more affordable and thus attainable for the average family.
And should a pregnant mom choose to parent she will have healthcare and childcare expenses. This is also where assistance should be directed.
If the money for universities in Massachusetts were invested more appropriately in life-affirming options for women, they could begin to bridge that gap for those who are less likely to graduate due to unplanned pregnancy.
These funds should rather be used in support of women to go to classes, take work home or to their dorm room, and help cover the costs of their medical visits and childcare costs.
If the goal is to truly help women graduate, bridging this gap and investing in non-fatal options for the long-term is the best option. It's only logical that we should invest more in the counseling, mental, emotional and financial support of those who find themselves dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and adapt the classes and living situations appropriately for those who want to choose adoption, or keep and raise their baby.
Tweet This: If the goal is to truly help women graduate, investing in non-fatal options for the long-term - not chemical abortion - is the best option.
However, if these individuals are only offered assistance to access chemical abortion, it’s cleverly understated favoritism for abortion.
The goal of education should be to give young people true freedom of choice, and support them in properly exercising free-will. But they cannot exercise all their options when only chemical abortion options are being presented.
Those behind these bills are presenting funding to be used for a chemical option that is exceedingly dangerous to women. Women are not being informed of all the risks, pain and fear involved in this process. They are not being given all the viable options.
This path will not help women graduate and realize their dreams of higher education.
Rather it is a clear push to promote a cynical and dangerous agenda that will only deepen the pockets of the abortion industry at the expense of young women.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Hep News.
