Some states have been prohibiting abortions as part of their restrictions on non-essential medical services. Given the short window mothers have to abort a fetus, any restrictions on abortions as non-required procedures are wrong.
One way or another, that child is coming out, and will impact the health care system, so shouldn’t the option be given to the mother who is carrying and has to care for the child as to when and how?
If states are going to prohibit abortions as non-essential procedures, then I hope the states are prepared to care for these kids and pay child support. Further, I vote that state legislators who passed these laws be the first people required to take on these children, care for them, house them and pay for them for the next 18 years.
It is wrong to subject a mother and family to 18 years of child care and expenses because of a short-term virus. And how is adding one more adoption doing any benefit to an already taxed social service system?
James Reed, South Salt Lake