Abortions and the Poor

A new effort will be made in the days ahead to have the California Legislature remove restrictions on abortions funded by Medi-Cal. It is a worthy effort. The restrictions are unfair, a manifestation of flawed policies that would reduce the care of low-income Americans.

In recent years the restrictive language has been ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, and abortion services have been provided despite the restrictive language. The court has been correct. But the Legislature should not rely on the court to do what is fundamentally its responsibility. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the newly constituted Supreme Court will necessarily reach the same conclusion on the issue of constitutionality.

The number of abortions funded by Medi-Cal appears to have been declining. In 1985, the last year for which there are complete figures, Medi-Cal funded 77,446 abortions at an average cost of $343. That was thought to be about one-third of all abortions carried out in the state. The cost for next year would be under $40 million, or scarcely 0.5% of the total Medi-Cal budget.

There is broad public support for the 1973 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing abortions. The court argued persuasively that this is a private matter for the pregnant woman to decide, and that it should be beyond the police power of the state. The procedure is readily available. But it is a right denied when payment for abortion is denied low-income women by the health program that is intended to provide their medical and hospital services.

Another controversy over abortion also is taking form in Sacramento as a new effort is mounted to require parental consent for teen-agers seeking abortions. That sort of restriction is more likely to do harm than good, for its effect will be on the families in which trust and communication already have been destroyed. We find the position of the California Medical Assn. helpful: “The medical community encourages teen-agers to communicate with their parents and involve them in decision-making. However, the ideal family unit does not always exist. Consequently, CMA believes that access to confidential health care should be made available to minors. Numerous studies have shown that teen-agers will not seek medical care if forced to inform their parents. This situation can cause medical problems which can affect an individual for life.� The statement notes the risks of disease, including AIDS, in the absence of adequate family-planning information and the dangers of postponed abortions.

We understand the strong feelings of religious and other groups opposed to abortion. They have every right to choose their response on this issue. But that freedom of choice must not be theirs alone. Nor should one group, however strong its feelings, be permitted to impose them on society through the police power of the state.