I think one crucial way to defend the child without laying a burden on the most vulnerable mothers is to train doctors, nurses, etc. to not see poor women's children as a burden! So much medical care for pregnant women below a certain income/education level presumes that the child is unwanted, unplanned, or will face difficulties that mean they should never come into existence at all. While obviously there are real material difficulties that women need help overcoming, and I don't want to diminish those, I also wonder what would happen if the unborn child of a poor woman was treated with the same anticipation and joy by medical professionals as the unborn child of a woman who can afford to get treated in the fancy clinics. I'm expecting my first child and all my care providers thus far have assumed that this child was loved, wanted and planned because I am a well-educated, well-dressed young white woman with a steady income. (The joke's kind of on them: while this child is very loved and wanted, it was also very much not planned - but no one assumes that if you look and talk a certain way.) Nobody's tried to talk me out of having this baby or suggested that I should get on birth control when I tell them I'm not using contraception. This is very much not the experience of many women being treated in free clinics. But just because you might experience a financial burden because of your child doesn't necessarily mean you aren't just as excited to have that baby! Imagine if we assumed that all women experience a similar mix of joy, trepidation and excitement when they conceive a child, and celebrated with them as much as we say "that must be tough for you". While we work to lift the economic and social burdens that exist for vulnerable women, we also need to work to change our attitude towards children conceived in these situations, otherwise we send mixed messages about the value of their lives.
The Jeremiah Program: they work closely with single teen moms and their children to break the cycle of poverty using a 2-Gen approach. https://jeremiahprogram.org/
I'm a big fan of in home parent education as an early intervention. Here's one group that implements that well for teen moms - https://myhealthmn.org/becoming-program/
I'm also a big fan of the holistic policies in Scandinavian states, like the Finnish baby box, free healthcare and a strong social safety net including childcare and leave policies. The Finnish Baby Box is a particularly great story: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415
One thing to keep in mind when looking at the disproportionate impact of pro-life laws on marginalized women is their implementation - and that they don't ban abortion, they ban legal abortion. One study on the impact of implementation of pro-life laws was done in Ethiopia, where they repealed some abortion restrictions in an attempt to decrease maternal mortality: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4
I don't know if anyone has mentioned the organization New Wave Feminists, but its lead organizer, Destiny Herndon works for the elimination of the need for abortion. Laws and support systems that make it possible for women to have their children. They are a small organization but they have touched a nerve and garnered a lot of support.
I both agree with and diverge from the points about narrowing access for poor women. My divergence is the criticism of the undue burden laws and cases. I get the idea, but we're throttled to a certain extent by the jurisprudence. Georgia and Alabama knew the laws would get knocked down immediately (so one could also ask, why not go for broke?). Texas and Louisiana didn't; once their laws were challenged, they defended on the applicable legal standard. And I think we shouldn't hide that obviously a lot of pro-lifers hoped the laws would reduce abortion, but there is a genuine concern for women's wellbeing, too, because have been enough cases to raise concern that the politicized nature of it makes it hard to hold bad practitioners accountable (see, e.g., Will Saletan's interesting series in Slate from a decade ago). (I also should admit to a grudging respect for one TX abortion clinic which proactively updated their facilities to meet ASC standards to be able to continue providing abortions. I wish they were committed to something else, but it's clearly a commitment to provide something they think is important for women.)
Where I agree is that the wealthy are always going to have more options, and the poor are always going to have more difficulty dealing with the same challenge.. so we should very much focus on supporting the marginalized and lessening that gap. A related but somewhat separate example I see with the PP clinics vs. federally qualified health centers. It's very easy to say, "There are more FQHCs and they treat more people and provide more services!" but that doesn't mean they can just absorb all of PP's clients (they're also often stretched thin), and it certainly doesn't resolve things like how underserved certain rural and urban areas and populations are in terms of medical care. I think we should be working on that gap--and that also can help connect poor women who find themselves in an unexpected and challenging pregnancy with additional resources and support (public and private).
One answer I think is beyond the abortion issue altogether. How might we encourage poor women to work towards more effective family formation so that they don't have to become single pregnant women more likely to seek abortions?
I think this question is sort of a red herring, honestly. Indiana's law also lays a "disproportionate burdern" on poorer mothers, because richer mothers can more easily travel to Illinois or Ohio or wherever to get eugenic abortions. Closing clinics isn't any different in that respect; it just prevents more abortions (right?) and therefore "burdens" more women. (Being dishonest in order to close clinics is wicked, and it may be bad politics, but that's a separate question.)
I think one crucial way to defend the child without laying a burden on the most vulnerable mothers is to train doctors, nurses, etc. to not see poor women's children as a burden! So much medical care for pregnant women below a certain income/education level presumes that the child is unwanted, unplanned, or will face difficulties that mean they should never come into existence at all. While obviously there are real material difficulties that women need help overcoming, and I don't want to diminish those, I also wonder what would happen if the unborn child of a poor woman was treated with the same anticipation and joy by medical professionals as the unborn child of a woman who can afford to get treated in the fancy clinics. I'm expecting my first child and all my care providers thus far have assumed that this child was loved, wanted and planned because I am a well-educated, well-dressed young white woman with a steady income. (The joke's kind of on them: while this child is very loved and wanted, it was also very much not planned - but no one assumes that if you look and talk a certain way.) Nobody's tried to talk me out of having this baby or suggested that I should get on birth control when I tell them I'm not using contraception. This is very much not the experience of many women being treated in free clinics. But just because you might experience a financial burden because of your child doesn't necessarily mean you aren't just as excited to have that baby! Imagine if we assumed that all women experience a similar mix of joy, trepidation and excitement when they conceive a child, and celebrated with them as much as we say "that must be tough for you". While we work to lift the economic and social burdens that exist for vulnerable women, we also need to work to change our attitude towards children conceived in these situations, otherwise we send mixed messages about the value of their lives.
I love this question: "How do we defend the child without laying a disproportionate burden on the most vulnerable mothers?"
I think the answer is in work that surrounds every mother with supportive care, material/financial resources and community support.
Here are some awesome policies and orgs that advocate for all families, although none identify as pro-life:
The Two Gen approach: The idea is that you work closely with parents and children together - not only one or the other. https://www.nga.org/center/issues/two-generation-approaches-to-serving-low-income-families/ (here's MN: https://mn.gov/dhs/2-generation/)
The Jeremiah Program: they work closely with single teen moms and their children to break the cycle of poverty using a 2-Gen approach. https://jeremiahprogram.org/
I'm a big fan of in home parent education as an early intervention. Here's one group that implements that well for teen moms - https://myhealthmn.org/becoming-program/
I'm also a big fan of the holistic policies in Scandinavian states, like the Finnish baby box, free healthcare and a strong social safety net including childcare and leave policies. The Finnish Baby Box is a particularly great story: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415
One thing to keep in mind when looking at the disproportionate impact of pro-life laws on marginalized women is their implementation - and that they don't ban abortion, they ban legal abortion. One study on the impact of implementation of pro-life laws was done in Ethiopia, where they repealed some abortion restrictions in an attempt to decrease maternal mortality: https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4
I don't know if anyone has mentioned the organization New Wave Feminists, but its lead organizer, Destiny Herndon works for the elimination of the need for abortion. Laws and support systems that make it possible for women to have their children. They are a small organization but they have touched a nerve and garnered a lot of support.
I both agree with and diverge from the points about narrowing access for poor women. My divergence is the criticism of the undue burden laws and cases. I get the idea, but we're throttled to a certain extent by the jurisprudence. Georgia and Alabama knew the laws would get knocked down immediately (so one could also ask, why not go for broke?). Texas and Louisiana didn't; once their laws were challenged, they defended on the applicable legal standard. And I think we shouldn't hide that obviously a lot of pro-lifers hoped the laws would reduce abortion, but there is a genuine concern for women's wellbeing, too, because have been enough cases to raise concern that the politicized nature of it makes it hard to hold bad practitioners accountable (see, e.g., Will Saletan's interesting series in Slate from a decade ago). (I also should admit to a grudging respect for one TX abortion clinic which proactively updated their facilities to meet ASC standards to be able to continue providing abortions. I wish they were committed to something else, but it's clearly a commitment to provide something they think is important for women.)
Where I agree is that the wealthy are always going to have more options, and the poor are always going to have more difficulty dealing with the same challenge.. so we should very much focus on supporting the marginalized and lessening that gap. A related but somewhat separate example I see with the PP clinics vs. federally qualified health centers. It's very easy to say, "There are more FQHCs and they treat more people and provide more services!" but that doesn't mean they can just absorb all of PP's clients (they're also often stretched thin), and it certainly doesn't resolve things like how underserved certain rural and urban areas and populations are in terms of medical care. I think we should be working on that gap--and that also can help connect poor women who find themselves in an unexpected and challenging pregnancy with additional resources and support (public and private).
One answer I think is beyond the abortion issue altogether. How might we encourage poor women to work towards more effective family formation so that they don't have to become single pregnant women more likely to seek abortions?
I think this question is sort of a red herring, honestly. Indiana's law also lays a "disproportionate burdern" on poorer mothers, because richer mothers can more easily travel to Illinois or Ohio or wherever to get eugenic abortions. Closing clinics isn't any different in that respect; it just prevents more abortions (right?) and therefore "burdens" more women. (Being dishonest in order to close clinics is wicked, and it may be bad politics, but that's a separate question.)