Women’s access to reproductive health, even though anti-abortionists try to present it as a moral issue, is a medical issue. Let’s just pretend that more restrictive laws are passed relative to the right to reproductive health care. I have a few questions to pose. Since some politicians and justices state that denying access to abortion wouldn’t be so bad because those babies could be put up for adoption, let’s pretend that there are millions of people eagerly waiting to adopt all these babies. If my 12 year old granddaughter is impregnated through rape or incest, the law says she must carry this pregnancy to term. Will legislatures, as part of having passed laws restricting abortion, also pass funding for the health care of this 12-year-old whose own health and development will be negatively impacted by such an early pregnancy or will she just have to tough it out on her own?
Will female children and fully developed women be compensated for being incubators for others? I think a minimum of $1,000 per month of pregnancy is a fair deal. Will a pregnant child forced to carry to term have lifelong support by taxpayers for this offspring, including support to help the child-mother finish her education? Is that funding part of the existing proposed legislation? I haven’t read that anywhere. Will families of mothers who lose their lives due to a flawed pregnancy be compensated for the loss of that person? Any legislators/ justices care to chime in?
Judith Ackerson
Franklin