

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Recently, Lori Szala the national director of client services for the Human Coalition, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times attempting to deny a connection between the availability of abortion and the economic well-being of women and families. Ms. Szala claims that linking abortion and economics "reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects." Abortion, she writes, is society's "way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
It would be easier to take her argument seriously if Ms. Szala didn't work for an organization whose mission is to outlaw abortion. Nonetheless, she is right in saying that our society must do far more to support pregnant women and families. Parenting should not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy--but neither should abortion care. Further, it's just plain wrong to deny, as Ms. Szala does, that preventing a woman from getting an abortion if she wants one has real economic consequences. There is no getting around the fact that when a woman can't complete her schooling or loses her job because she needs to stay home with her child, she and her family suffer economically.
No woman who wants to become pregnant, continue a pregnancy, adopt a child, or otherwise grow her family should be pressured or prevented from doing so because she's worried that she won't be able to provide that child with basic necessities. At the same time, we must be honest about the economic pressures pregnant and parenting women face and ensure that each woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care she needs to make the decisions that are best for her, her family and her future.
Unfortunately, some federal and state lawmakers are trying to pull the rug out from under women and families: They've refused to raise the minimum wage to keep up even with inflation, and they've gutted health, education, nutrition, and housing programs families need to live with health and dignity.
Those same politicians, whose are making it harder and harder for women with kids to make ends meet, are the very ones who are also pushing abortion out of reach, leaving many women in an impossible double bind. A woman who wants to continue a pregnancy must contend with lack of family-leave policies, poor child-care options, unaffordable housing, a health insurance system that is currently on the chopping block and more. (The healthcare bill recently passed by the House allows insurance companies to deny maternity care and attempts to prevent insurers from covering abortion, and the Trump administration has indicated that it would like to allow employers a free pass to block their employees' right to coverage for birth control.)
At the same time, a woman who has decided to end her pregnancy may be blocked from that care by needless restrictions that shut down clinics and bans on abortion coverage as well as other policies designed to shame, bully, and punish women for abortion. And all of these policies fall hardest on those struggling financially, who are more likely to be women of color, immigrants, younger, and LGBTQ.
Szala's attempt to deny the connection between abortion access and economic security runs counter to women's lived experiences and the facts. Research shows that a woman who wants to get an abortion but is denied it is more likely to be in poverty years later than one who can get an abortion.
There are two problems here. The first arises when a woman's decision -- which she alone is best positioned to make -- is thwarted by politicians, and she's forced onto a path she didn't choose for herself. For example, restricting Medicaid coverage of abortion forces one in four poor women seeking abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The second is when a woman is able to see her decision through -- whether it's continuing a pregnancy or seeking an abortion -- but still experiences severe economic consequences. This happens when a woman is able to obtain and pay for an abortion, but it means forgoing rent or other basic needs or when a woman decides to have a baby but isn't paid a living wage that allows her to support a child.
It's an extraordinarily challenging landscape for women who are trying to make and carry out decisions about pregnancy, our families, and our futures. It can sometimes feel like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. But that's why we keep fighting. That's why we fight for the right of each woman to make her own decisions about pregnancy and parenting, get abortion care when she needs it, continue a pregnancy if she wants to, and raise children with dignity.
That's also why in addition to reproductive freedom, the ACLU works for racial justice, voting rights, immigrants' rights, economic justice, and more: Because women are more than any one aspect of their lives. Supporting women and families means ensuring that income doesn't determine access to basic human rights.
We should all work toward a world where economic pressures don't factor into a woman's pregnancy decisions. But we're not there yet -- and wishing it was otherwise won't make it so. We'll get there by continuing each day to fight for women and families and a better future for us all.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Recently, Lori Szala the national director of client services for the Human Coalition, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times attempting to deny a connection between the availability of abortion and the economic well-being of women and families. Ms. Szala claims that linking abortion and economics "reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects." Abortion, she writes, is society's "way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
It would be easier to take her argument seriously if Ms. Szala didn't work for an organization whose mission is to outlaw abortion. Nonetheless, she is right in saying that our society must do far more to support pregnant women and families. Parenting should not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy--but neither should abortion care. Further, it's just plain wrong to deny, as Ms. Szala does, that preventing a woman from getting an abortion if she wants one has real economic consequences. There is no getting around the fact that when a woman can't complete her schooling or loses her job because she needs to stay home with her child, she and her family suffer economically.
No woman who wants to become pregnant, continue a pregnancy, adopt a child, or otherwise grow her family should be pressured or prevented from doing so because she's worried that she won't be able to provide that child with basic necessities. At the same time, we must be honest about the economic pressures pregnant and parenting women face and ensure that each woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care she needs to make the decisions that are best for her, her family and her future.
Unfortunately, some federal and state lawmakers are trying to pull the rug out from under women and families: They've refused to raise the minimum wage to keep up even with inflation, and they've gutted health, education, nutrition, and housing programs families need to live with health and dignity.
Those same politicians, whose are making it harder and harder for women with kids to make ends meet, are the very ones who are also pushing abortion out of reach, leaving many women in an impossible double bind. A woman who wants to continue a pregnancy must contend with lack of family-leave policies, poor child-care options, unaffordable housing, a health insurance system that is currently on the chopping block and more. (The healthcare bill recently passed by the House allows insurance companies to deny maternity care and attempts to prevent insurers from covering abortion, and the Trump administration has indicated that it would like to allow employers a free pass to block their employees' right to coverage for birth control.)
At the same time, a woman who has decided to end her pregnancy may be blocked from that care by needless restrictions that shut down clinics and bans on abortion coverage as well as other policies designed to shame, bully, and punish women for abortion. And all of these policies fall hardest on those struggling financially, who are more likely to be women of color, immigrants, younger, and LGBTQ.
Szala's attempt to deny the connection between abortion access and economic security runs counter to women's lived experiences and the facts. Research shows that a woman who wants to get an abortion but is denied it is more likely to be in poverty years later than one who can get an abortion.
There are two problems here. The first arises when a woman's decision -- which she alone is best positioned to make -- is thwarted by politicians, and she's forced onto a path she didn't choose for herself. For example, restricting Medicaid coverage of abortion forces one in four poor women seeking abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The second is when a woman is able to see her decision through -- whether it's continuing a pregnancy or seeking an abortion -- but still experiences severe economic consequences. This happens when a woman is able to obtain and pay for an abortion, but it means forgoing rent or other basic needs or when a woman decides to have a baby but isn't paid a living wage that allows her to support a child.
It's an extraordinarily challenging landscape for women who are trying to make and carry out decisions about pregnancy, our families, and our futures. It can sometimes feel like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. But that's why we keep fighting. That's why we fight for the right of each woman to make her own decisions about pregnancy and parenting, get abortion care when she needs it, continue a pregnancy if she wants to, and raise children with dignity.
That's also why in addition to reproductive freedom, the ACLU works for racial justice, voting rights, immigrants' rights, economic justice, and more: Because women are more than any one aspect of their lives. Supporting women and families means ensuring that income doesn't determine access to basic human rights.
We should all work toward a world where economic pressures don't factor into a woman's pregnancy decisions. But we're not there yet -- and wishing it was otherwise won't make it so. We'll get there by continuing each day to fight for women and families and a better future for us all.
Recently, Lori Szala the national director of client services for the Human Coalition, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times attempting to deny a connection between the availability of abortion and the economic well-being of women and families. Ms. Szala claims that linking abortion and economics "reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects." Abortion, she writes, is society's "way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
It would be easier to take her argument seriously if Ms. Szala didn't work for an organization whose mission is to outlaw abortion. Nonetheless, she is right in saying that our society must do far more to support pregnant women and families. Parenting should not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy--but neither should abortion care. Further, it's just plain wrong to deny, as Ms. Szala does, that preventing a woman from getting an abortion if she wants one has real economic consequences. There is no getting around the fact that when a woman can't complete her schooling or loses her job because she needs to stay home with her child, she and her family suffer economically.
No woman who wants to become pregnant, continue a pregnancy, adopt a child, or otherwise grow her family should be pressured or prevented from doing so because she's worried that she won't be able to provide that child with basic necessities. At the same time, we must be honest about the economic pressures pregnant and parenting women face and ensure that each woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care she needs to make the decisions that are best for her, her family and her future.
Unfortunately, some federal and state lawmakers are trying to pull the rug out from under women and families: They've refused to raise the minimum wage to keep up even with inflation, and they've gutted health, education, nutrition, and housing programs families need to live with health and dignity.
Those same politicians, whose are making it harder and harder for women with kids to make ends meet, are the very ones who are also pushing abortion out of reach, leaving many women in an impossible double bind. A woman who wants to continue a pregnancy must contend with lack of family-leave policies, poor child-care options, unaffordable housing, a health insurance system that is currently on the chopping block and more. (The healthcare bill recently passed by the House allows insurance companies to deny maternity care and attempts to prevent insurers from covering abortion, and the Trump administration has indicated that it would like to allow employers a free pass to block their employees' right to coverage for birth control.)
At the same time, a woman who has decided to end her pregnancy may be blocked from that care by needless restrictions that shut down clinics and bans on abortion coverage as well as other policies designed to shame, bully, and punish women for abortion. And all of these policies fall hardest on those struggling financially, who are more likely to be women of color, immigrants, younger, and LGBTQ.
Szala's attempt to deny the connection between abortion access and economic security runs counter to women's lived experiences and the facts. Research shows that a woman who wants to get an abortion but is denied it is more likely to be in poverty years later than one who can get an abortion.
There are two problems here. The first arises when a woman's decision -- which she alone is best positioned to make -- is thwarted by politicians, and she's forced onto a path she didn't choose for herself. For example, restricting Medicaid coverage of abortion forces one in four poor women seeking abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The second is when a woman is able to see her decision through -- whether it's continuing a pregnancy or seeking an abortion -- but still experiences severe economic consequences. This happens when a woman is able to obtain and pay for an abortion, but it means forgoing rent or other basic needs or when a woman decides to have a baby but isn't paid a living wage that allows her to support a child.
It's an extraordinarily challenging landscape for women who are trying to make and carry out decisions about pregnancy, our families, and our futures. It can sometimes feel like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. But that's why we keep fighting. That's why we fight for the right of each woman to make her own decisions about pregnancy and parenting, get abortion care when she needs it, continue a pregnancy if she wants to, and raise children with dignity.
That's also why in addition to reproductive freedom, the ACLU works for racial justice, voting rights, immigrants' rights, economic justice, and more: Because women are more than any one aspect of their lives. Supporting women and families means ensuring that income doesn't determine access to basic human rights.
We should all work toward a world where economic pressures don't factor into a woman's pregnancy decisions. But we're not there yet -- and wishing it was otherwise won't make it so. We'll get there by continuing each day to fight for women and families and a better future for us all.