The Seward Phoenix Log - News of the Eastern Kenai Peninsula since 1966

Women legislators ignoring contraception facts


In a recent commentary released to Alaska media about oil taxes, eleven female Alaska state legislators claimed their bona fides as champions of the “best interests” of Alaskan children.

However, ten of those eleven women have apparently forgotten the harmful votes they cast this past spring that stripped an amendment to increase funding for contraceptives for low-income women and mothers from SB 49. Rep. Holmes was the only one of the eleven who truly demonstrated decision-making in the best interests of children that day by voting in support of the contraceptive funding and against the bill.

Apparently, “as women,” the ten legislators don’t know or don’t care about the seriously negative impact of poverty and related family size on a child’s socio-economic outcomes. Family size critically impacts the well-being of children born to low-income mothers. The Guttmacher Institute reports survey findings where, “65% of women reported that, over the course of their lives, access to contraception had enabled them to take better care of themselves or their families, support themselves financially, complete their education, or get or keep a job.” The report adds, “The most common reason women gave (for seeking contraceptives) was not being able to afford to care for a baby at that time (and) among women with children, nearly all cited their need to care for their current children as a reason for practicing contraception.” The Urban Institute reports that “being poor at birth is a strong predictor of future poverty status . . . children who are born into poverty and spend multiple years living in poor families have worse adult outcomes than their counterparts in higher-income families.”

Before the final house floor vote on SB 49 and the contraception amendment, Rep. LaDoux joked, “Other than putting contraceptives in the drinking water, I mean we’ve done just about everything we can do as far as family planning services.” Her statement is not funny or true—poverty is a serious issue and legislators control a lot of money, so can do more, and evidently need to do more since 51% of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended (Guttmacher).

Women and mothers of childbearing age who live on low-incomes have difficulty affording and obtaining reliable contraceptives. Sen. Berta Gardner stated in an Alaska senate floor debate on SB 49 that the most reliable contraceptives “do require a physician’s prescription, often accompanied by an examination or at least access to a clinic.” That costs low-income women and mothers money they don’t have. Sen. Gardner indicated in a follow-up Anchorage Daily News article that she is “convinced not all women can afford birth control, or even pay for a bus ride across town to get to a clinic.”

Clearly, affordable and accessible contraceptives are essential to all wives, mothers, girls, and women of child-bearing age in the best interests of children. Such preventive health care allows girls and women to develop their education and careers; plan the number of children they can realistically, competently, and independently afford; and reduce the need for last-resort abortions.

It is a callous, egregious act for any lawmaker to support and pass laws that would increase the already overwhelming burdens Alaska’s low-income mothers and their children carry through every aspect of their daily lives. The truth is, while hidden from most Alaskans’ view down in Juneau last spring, Representatives Costello, Gattis, Hughes, Millett, Reinbold, P. Wilson, and T. Wilson along with Senators McGuire, Fairclough, and Giessel cast cold-hearted votes against the best interests of Alaska’s children wh


Reader Comments


Our Family of Publications Includes:

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2017

Rendered 03/14/2018 16:10