Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	On October 16, the South Middlesex NOW will have Carol Doherty
	(Director, Campaign for Choice) speak on the Anti-abortion
	referendum in Mass.  It will be held at 7:30 in the Framingham 
	Public Library.

	On October 18, a Rally will be held in Boston to protest the
	referendum.  The Rally will start at 11:30 in Copley Square and
	march to Government Center where there will be speakers at 1:00pm.
	The Rally is in honor of Rosie Jimenez who was the first woman
	to die of an illegal abortion after the the Hyde ammendment cut off
	federal medicaid funding of abortion.

The Mass. Referendum question #1 is a dangerous little sucker.  It's
 been worded very confusingly, and many people don't know quite what
  it means.  A recent poll indicates that 80% of Mass. residents are
   pro-choice (consistent with past polls and the rest of the country),
    but about half of those polled said they would vote for the refer-
     endum.  Many, of course, thought a YES vote was pro-choice!

The anti-abortion groups know the question is confusing.  They should;
 they wrote it!  Their strategy has been, essentially, to sit back and
  not say anything.  The Catholic Church has also announced that it's
   going to sit this one out.

The danger is that the referendum will pass simply because of confusion.
 Considering that a large majority of voters are pro-choice, the strat-
  egy for pro-choice groups is clear:  get out the message that a NO
   vote on Question 1 is the pro-choice vote.

We (ULowell Women's Center) are working on posters right now to convey
 this simple message.  It seems to me that what is most important is to
  have people at the polls on election day, holding up signs saying,
   simply, that a NO VOTE ON QUESTION 1 GOES TOWARDS KEEPING ABORTIONS
    LEGAL.
     <_Jym_>

I spoke with someone at the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts yesterday,
and he said that they thought that there is a good chance that question 1 will be
voted down AS LONG AS PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE.  That's a reminder.


There's been a lot of debate about this question, which is good. There was one
column in the Globe (against public funding of abortions) which stated figures
for repeat abortions -- there was some incredible percentage of women who were
having third and fourth abortions done. They were claiming that it was something
like 30% in some places. The writer argued that the public was paying for birth
control for many of these people. (I don't remember all of the exact figures
because they were so high that I couldn't believe them).

Does anyone know the actual figures for this?  Is it widespread, or just in
certain areas?

					-- hal

I don't have any actual numbers with me, but I would like to reply that
the cost would be much greater if they had had those children and the public
would then have to support them (after all the parents must be on welfare).
Then since the children are unwanted, they might have a lot of emotional
problems which could cause them to get involved in crime or just need
extra attention which would be paid for by the public.  And don't let people
kid themselves that those children will be adopted by all those poor people
out there who can't have children themselves.  How many of them will accept
an unhealthy baby that might have birth defects and is of the currently
unpopular minority group?  They all want caucasions or maybe one of those
cute little oriental babies from overseas  (I heard of a couple who sent their
adopted baby back because it had a defect).

You can always find statistics that say as high as "30% in some places".  Some
ethnic cultures will not allow birth control, so what's the kid to do?
And are they going to tell that 10 year old girl that's been raped by her
father that she should have the baby?  Oh by the way, it's medically unsafe
for kids to have children since their bodies aren't developed enough.

Who was it who said that Pro-lifers were concerned about life from the
moment of conception until birth?

...Karen

Sorry, guess I rambled on a bit.  Hope I didn't offend anyone who's trying
to adopt either, it takes a really special person to adopt problem children,
and I'm probably not one of them.

    a bit of a tangent here....
    
   Having adopted 4 mixed race kids one of whom was handicapped we
    are definitely more flexible than a lot of potential adoptive
    parents. However, a lot of agencies won't even place kids whose birth
    parents were white/black with white families much less kids who
    are not obviously of "mixed' background. It is often not the potential
    parents but the agency that is saying no to these kinds of adoptions.
    
    I do understand the reasons why. A lot of minority social workers
    felt that white families could not bring minority kids up to be
    able to deal with the real world and to have a strong sense of ethnic
    pride and identity. They also felt correctly that not enough effort
    was being made to recruit nonwhite adoptive parents.

    But just because there may be kids without parents in these categories,
    doesn't mean that there aren't willing families who would take them
    and love them and bring them up to be happy healthy adults if they
    could. 
    
    Mass Adoption Resource Exchange has been doing an especially fine
    job in recruiting parents for some of these hard to place kids,
    and also helping provide help for people who have taken older and
    emotionally troubled kids.
    
    Getting back to the topic ....it is too bad that no one raised the
    counter arguement of the cost to society of unwanted children being
    born.

re: 93.4
>You can always find statistics that say as high as "30% in some places".  Some
>ethnic cultures will not allow birth control, so what's the kid to do?
>And are they going to tell that 10 year old girl that's been raped by her
>father that she should have the baby?  

Sorry i wasn't specific -- the "some places" were in Mass, or perhaps just 
some parts of Boston.  And, as we've seen, yes, "they" will make that 10 year-
old have the baby.

The Abortion initiative (Question 1) was resoundlingly defeated in
Massachusetts.  If I understood the morning news correctly, all of
the abortion referenda (in about a half-dozen states) were defeated
(i.e. pro-choice won).

Martin.

	Hurray!!  Thanks to all of you who helped defeat those referenda.
	I'm amazed at the amount of effort that went into the pro-choice
	campaign and I really admire those who practically made this a
	full time job during the last month.  I'm glad we can take a small
	rest now, but if anyone hears of more anti-abortion efforts,
	please post them.  I know it won't stop.

	..Karen

    I think it may still be too soon to tell about Arkansas.
    NPR this morning said that the count was STILL dead even with 90%
    votes counted. Which ever way it goes, I'm sure there will be a
    re-count.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /