Making loans to low income women to get abortions

Pro-Choicers keep saying that poor women will not be able to get abortions, and that this could delay the abortion later into the pregnancy, which would obviously be undesirable.

Here is a proposal: How about government making loans to allow low income women to get abortions. But they will eventually have to pay that money back, and it will come with numerous restrictions and limitations.

I don't have a problem with the government making a loan to women to get an abortion, provided it's only her first abortion, is done before 7 weeks gestation, and she has to pay it back, with maybe 1.5% interest. And she won't be allowed to get into any more debt before it's paid off, unless that debt is for medical reasons.

We could also impose special requirements to be able get this loan, like she has to watch a short little Pro-Life video, and has to see an ultrasound of the fetus inside of her, right before the abortion.

I think if the Pro-Life side were willing to pass this, Pro-Choicers would not be able to continue to complain about "poor women".

 

if they are low income, which costs the taxpayers more, having the child or not having the child?

 

It sounds like you are trying to deflect from the heart of the issue.
Would you be willing to support this proposal or not?

 

sure, if prolifers support loaning money for abortions, I would support it, they never will though

as long as she is paid to watch the ultrasounds and pro-life video as it's her time they're wasting and that is subtracted from her loan amount

 

So you are saying that if she were required to spend 12 minutes of her time watching a pro-life video and 25 minutes getting an ultrasound in order to be approved for the loan, you would not support these loans, and would prefer there be no loans to that?

I know you may find these requirements odious & offensive, but would you really prefer no loans for low income women exist rather than having loans available if she meets the requirements?
I mean if you had to choose between those 2 options.

 

and force to get an ultrasound, those things have to be scheduled, they take time, more than 25 min, days are added to the process, maybe even weeks, and when you have laws that only give you weeks, time is of the essence

so would also add, the clock stops when one requests an abortion, not when all the extra's republicans require are finished, would you agree to that?

 

A contingency could be worded into the law that if it takes longer or delays the woman longer than a certain set amount of time, then she is no longer bound by those two requirements to be able to get the loan.

But there needs to be some sort of accountability designed into the law that this is not just used as a loophole. Like maybe outsourcing the job to some independent group and having financial incentives if they can't conduct their job in a timely manner.

Those pro-life vans are able to get women in and out of the van to do the ultrasound in under 25 minutes.
(If, on the other hand, a woman has to wait for the technician after arriving, the appointment could take 30 minutes to an hour. The actual procedure sometimes takes only 15 minutes)

 

so would also add, the clock stops for getting an abortion when one requests an abortion, not when all the extra's republicans require are finished, would you agree to that?

now you want women to get vaginal probed by a 3rd party in a van?

so a women gets raped, needs to have a needless medical procedure by some person in a van to not have the rapists baby? a procedure neither the doctor or patient want or need btw...

 

That is ridiculous. That's not even how regular abortions work right now most of the time. She still has to get an appointment.

How about it can only delay her 48 hours, or until she is scheduled to get the abortion, whichever is longer. And it cannot take up more than 65 minutes of her time (excluding driving time and not counting the normal time to get the abortion, maybe add another 45 minutes for the time it takes to go through the loan approval process).

 

if it doesn't take long, why not stop the clock when a woman requests the abortion, seems you know this could take time and run out the clock....

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

If a woman makes the request during normal business hours and not on a holiday or Sunday, I'd be okay with having a requirement in the law that she has to be able to get the ultrasound and be able to see the video that same day, so long as the abortion is scheduled at a time that would allow a 2-hour buffer for the woman to meet those requirements during normal business hours before the abortion.

For example, if normal business hours were 8 to 6, then she could schedule the abortion appointment at 10 so long as she arrived by 8. Or she could schedule the abortion to begin at 6 if she arrived by 4.

 

I mean this vaginal probe by a 3rd party may run out the clock in some states, if one only has 6 weeks to get an abortion, by the time they notice did not have a period and test, any delay could run out the clock

 

I would totally be okay with wording in the law to prevent that possibility from being to happen. The way I envision it, being able to get the probe should not take more than 3 days.

Just for your information, the majority of patients have to wait about 7 days before they can get an appointment for abortion. That has nothing to do with the law, it's just how clinics normally work. That's not to say there are not sometimes women who are able to schedule an appointment for the same day, but it's more rare.
Most abortion clinics run near full capacity, so they usually don't have the time if a woman just wants to walk in. There's no time for the abortion workers to squeeze her in. It's not like a massage parlor.

 

so just stop the clock when they request the abortion, simple

 

I still don't understand exactly what you mean by that.
There would obviously have to be some small delay. Some women might try to intentionally have the abortion scheduled within 20 minutes or an hour to make sure there would be no time to fulfill the requirements.

I 100% agree that it should not delay her more than 5 or 6 days, less than the normal time it takes to schedule an abortion.

 

republican States are setting a clock, you can't have an abortion after so many weeks - any delay could cause a patient to fail to meet that - so stop the clock when they request an abortion

 

I don't see why watching a short video should delay a woman more than two or three days. Probably much less time than that. The ultrasound would probably be easier and quicker to get than the abortion itself.

I'd be against any modifying of the abortion (gestation time) cut-off point, or as you put it "stopping the clock".

It's probably not a good idea for her to apply for the loan right as the clock is about to tick out of time.
Even being able to schedule an abortion at that point is probably going to be more challenging and expensive, if she's telling the clinic she needs to get the procedure within 2 days.

 

setting up an appointment for an unneeded vaginal probe by a 3rd party can add time, time sometimes patients do not have

why not agree to stop the clock if it wont take much time

 

My counterproposal to you was to eliminate the added requirements if it adds too much time. I don't see how you could think that would be worse than your idea.

If a woman tries to get the abortion too close to the cut-off date, it might just not be possible for her to get the loan. But as I explained, I think those situations would be rare, since normally scheduling an abortion would take more time than getting a probe.

 

My gawd...you have the patience of a saint.

 

nope, stop the clock, if it doesn't take much time, it's not an issue

 

The better idea is to go back to letting women decide and you can enforce your anti-abortion views with your sister-wives.

 

This isn't about letting women decide. It's about who pays for it.

The issue raised in this thread has nothing to do with interfering with the woman getting an abortion. Only if she is seeking to get a loan from the taxpayers to pay for it.

Even with requirements, isn't it true that this proposal could only add options to women?

 

Yeah, right

 

So you think it's better not to have these loans than to have them. Okay...