By Atima Omara-Alwala, Women's eNews


(WOMENSENEWS) -- New immigrant Lana gets a job and puts down a deposit on a tiny apartment in the metro Washington, D.C., area, when she finds out she is 12 to 13 weeks pregnant. Realizing an abortion could cost between $350 and $500, with little savings and little income, she faces the prospect of losing the few roots she's built in the United States.


Fortunately for Lana, whose real name is not used to protect her privacy, there is the D.C. Abortion Fund, an all-volunteer nonprofit that makes grants to D.C. area women and girls who cannot afford the full cost of an abortion. The organization steps in to secure extra funding on her behalf and negotiates a clinic discount.


Abortion procedures aren't cheap. The cost of a first-trimester abortion on average in 2009 was $470, according to the New York City-based Guttmacher Institute, which can be more than a family on public assistance receives in a month. The estimated cost of a second-trimester abortion is $1,629. And these amounts are for a basic procedure with no outstanding medical issues; the costs can go even higher if there are complications.


Some of us know we'd be able to find the money to make up the difference. We are women of means who benefit from the promise of Roe because it's affordable to us. And by extension we assume Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, is the law of the land so all women can access it, right?


Yet, the truth is too many women do not have access to abortion care because of costs, and the need for abortion funds is crucial. The D.C. Abortion Fund is just one of the many funds across the country that has become even more critical to the lives of women as anti-choice legislation is increasingly restricting women's access.


It's a sentiment that keeps Val Vilott motivated in her work as president of the D.C. Abortion Fund.


"Too often," Vilott says, "people both inside and outside the choice movement talk about abortion only in terms of whether it is safe and legal. A critical piece missing from that type of rhetoric is the question of access."


Recent legislation in Kansas, Virginia and North Dakota underscore her point.


Financial Lifeline


n 2011, in a last minute appropriations deal, anti-choice Republicans attached a rider that restricted the District of Columbia from using its Medicaid funding for abortions. In a matter of hours, many women in Washington, D.C., who had abortion procedures scheduled with Medicaid support were at a loss as to how to cover their costs.


The D.C. Abortion Fund has grown in its capacity as a financial lifeline ever since.


But let's rewind to 1976, and you'll discover the culprit: The Hyde Amendment. Congress' passage of the amendment, which prohibits Medicaid from covering abortion care in almost all circumstances, discriminates against low-income women. Congressman Henry Hyde made that clear in his remarks at the time. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill."


The D.C. Abortion Fund has served many lower-income women and many women of color. Between 2011 and 2012, about 68 percent of the women who've reached out to the fund have been African American.


Nationwide, close to 40 percent of African American women obtain abortions, which is more than women of other ethnic groups combined, according to the Guttmacher Institute.


At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, 1-in-10 women will have an abortion by age 20, 1-in-4 by age 30 and 3-in-10 by age 45.


Forty-two percent of women obtaining these abortions have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). These women are also disproportionately women of color.


Military Restrictions


Having health insurance does not always protect a woman, especially when the restrictions on using Medicaid funding for abortion are extended to federal health benefit programs like the military's health care insurer, TRICARE. The ban on federal funding for abortion also applies to the TRICARE program. While the ban was lifted in cases of rape and incest, it still bars many other women covered by TRICARE from the procedure.


Like in the case of 26-year-old Melissa from New York, who cares for her daughter with special needs. Her husband is serving in the U.S. military overseas and the couple must consider their limited resources. Their choice was to undergo an abortion. Melissa, who asked not to use her full name to protect her privacy, manages to raise half of the cost of her procedure by delaying payment of non-essential bills. The New York Abortion Access Fund pledges the other half.


In New York and 15 other states, Medicaid pays for abortions using state and local funds. However, those dependent on other federal health insurance are not covered. Additionally, if a woman doesn't fall below the qualifying federal poverty level to receive Medicaid ($29,700 for a family of four in 2011), then she may get caught in the loophole of being "not poor" enough to receive Medicaid but still not financially able to cover health services.


Restrictions also have an impact on the Federal Employee Health Benefits, federal prison, Indian Health Services, the Peace Corps and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Women in these programs have called abortion funds despite having some form of health insurance.


20 Year Celebration


The National Network of Abortion Funds will celebrate its 20th anniversary this year at its summit in California in July. For two decades, it has worked to ensure direct support for activists on the ground, to enhance the communication among the funds and to build a national advocacy platform.


At last year's national summit, in June 2012, network members unveiled a new coalition of abortion rights activists: the Coalition for Abortion Access and Reproductive Equity (CAARE), with a long-term target to repeal the Hyde Amendment.


While other federal health programs and even some private insurance providers prohibit funding coverage for abortion, Stephanie Poggi, executive director of National Network of Abortion Funds, says the focus on Hyde is a paramount part of their efforts.


"We would like all bans to be lifted, but [we are] focusing on Hyde because it primarily affects lower income women," she says.


There are more challenges down the road to restrict women's access. In April, for instance, Virginia's state legislature passed an abortion ban that would prevent women who participate in the health exchange (as part of President Barack Obama's health care reform) from purchasing abortion coverage with their own dollars. This sets a dangerous precedent for other states and further highlights that as important as it is to give to pro-choice organizations fighting these stringent laws, it is just as important to donate to your local abortion funds.


Without the abortion funds, many more women will not be able to determine for themselves their reproductive destiny, because of the size of their wallet.


This story originally appeared on Women's eNews.


Also on HuffPost:






  • Defunding Planned Parenthood


    Planned Parenthood has become such a reliable punching bag for social conservatives that it would have been more surprising if former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) <em>didn't</em> include defunding the women's health services provider as a staple of his recent three-point plan to revitalize the GOP. “[W]e are going to push Republican congressional leaders to defund the monstrosity that is Planned Parenthood,” Santorum said in an April fundraising plea, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/07/rick-santorums-plan-to-revitalize-the-gop-defund-planned-parenthood/" target="_blank">according to Raw Story</a>. “Too many in the GOP want to ignore the millions of innocent lives that have been extinguished by this vile organization. Defunding Planned Parenthood is a winning issue. The polls prove it.” If threatening Planned Parenthood -- and the pap smears, STI screenings, breast exams and contraceptives that comprise 97 percent of its services -- seems somewhat passé, that's because it kind of is. The biggest state push to strip the organization of funds came from Republicans in 2011 and 2012, and while some laws were passed, most have been found unconstitutional by court rulings. The GOP's demonization of Planned Parenthood <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/defunding-planned-parenthood-polls_n_913685.html" target="_blank">has been</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/06/439059/texas-poll-planned-parenthood-defunding/" target="_blank">far more unpopular</a> than Santorum suggests, but that didn't stop congressional Republicans from eagerly continuing their crusade to eliminate its federal funding earlier this year with a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/planned-parenthood-funding-_n_2434592.html?1357683076" target="_blank">pair of new bills</a> that haven't moved forward. <BR> <BR>




  • Restricting Abortion Access


    The fight against women's reproductive rights continued this year, as it seemingly does every year, with a new slate of highly restrictive anti-abortion bills. A number of states have so far been successful at pioneering harsh new limits on abortion rights that would leave women who need such services in those states -- as well as their partners -- with few or no options. North Dakota led the charge, ushering through the toughest restrictions in the nation with a bill prohibiting abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. State Republicans <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/jack-dalrymple-north-dakota_n_2956934.html" target="_blank">have admitted</a> that it will likely set the stage for a bitter court challenge. Arkansas meanwhile <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/us/arkansas-adopts-restrictive-abortion-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&" target="_blank">passed a ban</a> on abortions after 12 weeks, and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/kansas-abortion_n_3029343.html?utm_hp_ref=politics" target="_blank">Kansas is set to enact a law that has raised concern</a> among abortion rights activists who say the language could lead to an outright abortion ban.<BR> <BR>




  • Implementing New Restrictions For Abortion Clinics, Doctors


    When banning abortions themselves isn't enough, states have also made a point of targeting the doctors and clinics that provide them. Opponents claim the push for harsher restrictions could eliminate abortion access entirely in some states, forcing women in need to face difficult and dangerous choices. Measures in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/mississippi-abortion-clinic_n_2558320.html" target="_blank">Mississippi</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/02/north-dakotas-only-abortion-clinic-isnt-going-anywhere/" target="_blank">North Dakota</a> have put the single abortion clinics in each of the states at risk of closing. The new regulations claim to ensure safer standards, requiring anyone performing abortions to be an OB-GYN with hospital admitting privileges. But critics argue that the abundance of caution is unnecessary, as procedures <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/us/alabama-legislature-approves-abortion-clinic-limits.html?_r=0" target="_blank">very rarely lead to medical emergencies</a>. With the stigmatization of abortion in many of these states often leaving only a few medical professionals who provide abortion services in the first place, opponents also argue that the new rules create an onerous if not impossible task that is intended to force clinics to close. New <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2013/04/decisive-hearing-abortion-clinic-rules-set-today" target="_blank">rules in Virginia</a> are causing similar consternation in the state, and beginning in July, the few clinics serving Alabama will face the same concerns thanks to a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/alabama-abortion-bill_n_3046005.html" target="_blank">newly passed law</a>.<BR> <BR>




  • Punishing Rape Victims Who Seek Abortions


    New Mexico state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) nearly one-upped <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html" target="_blank">Todd Akin</a> earlier this year, when she <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html" target="_blank">proposed legislation</a> seeking to make any rape victim who terminated a pregnancy guilty of "tampering with evidence," a third-degree felony. She later <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/cathrynn_brown_wants_to_abort_mission/" target="_blank">attempted to perform damage control</a>, adjusting the language of the bill. It didn't pass.




  • Cutting Sex Education Funding


    Some people apparently still believe the best sex education is the kind that includes neither sex nor education. In North Dakota, Arkansas and Texas, Republicans extended their vendetta against Planned Parenthood this year, bringing forth proposals to block the organization's effort to offer comprehensive sex education programs to at-risk teenagers. Lawmakers lofted a variety of arguments against the plan, which would have provided counseling and information about contraception, sexually transmitted infections and -- wait for it -- even abstinence. In Texas, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/texas-sex-ed-planned-parenthood_n_2819318.html" target="_blank">one supporter claimed</a> that it was impossible to entrust Planned Parenthood with sex education duties, because doing so would constitute a "conflict of interest" considering the group's role as an abortion provider. It was taken as a suggestion that she believed Planned Parenthood might miseducate teens in order to get them pregnant so that the the group could then make money off providing them with abortions. The bill hasn't passed yet. Lawmakers in North Dakota offered similar arguments in favor of their version of a similar measure, while Republicans in Arkansas <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/arkansas-planned-parenthood-sex-ed_n_3047024.html" target="_blank">pushed through a bill</a> that both defunds Planned Parenthood and effectively kills a comprehensive sex education program in the state's public high schools. The Arkansas bill also ends a state-funded HIV and STI prevention program, also administered by Planned Parenthood. Critics have called this a terrible idea, partially because <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1844321/arkansas-planned-parenthood-sex-ed/" target="_blank">Arkansas already has some of the highest</a> teen pregnancy and HIV rates in the nation, and partially because, duh.<BR> <BR>




  • Pushing Abstinence-Only Education


    While Republicans in a number of states fought comprehensive sex education, GOP lawmakers in Congress poured it on hot and heavy with an aggressive and ill-fated bill seeking to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/abstinence-education-reallocation-act_n_2807356.html" target="_blank">open up more than $550 million in federal grants</a> to programs that teach the "skills and benefits of sexual abstinence as the optimal sexual health behavior for youth." It also encouraged programs that provided an "understanding of how drugs, alcohol, and the irresponsible use of social media can influence sexual decisionmaking and can contribute to risky and often aggressive sexual behavior." Studies have repeatedly shown that this form of education <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html" target="_blank">doesn't work</a> and, in fact, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/14/482665/birth-control-misinformed/" target="_blank">increases risky sexual behavior</a> among young adults. As <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/themoogly/abstinence-education-reallocation-act_n_2807356_234478473.html" target="_blank">one witty HuffPost commenter quipped</a>, "If you gave every teen in America $550 million, they would still have sex."<BR> <BR>




  • Curbing Affordable Contraception


    The GOP offensive to scale back access to affordable birth control also perked up again in 2013, with Republicans taking most intent aim at an Obamacare contraception mandate that they have repeatedly called an attack on religious freedom. The push back against the measure -- which requires most insurance providers and employers to offer free contraception coverage -- <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/virginia-abortion-contraception_n_2410445.html?1357324409" target="_blank">first</a> <a href="http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/03/tim_jones_chris_koster_birth_control.php" target="_blank">cropped up</a> on the state level, but in March, a group of House Republicans threw it into the crossfire of budget negotiations when they <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/286217-gop-lawmakers-say-spending-bill-should-target-contraception-mandate" target="_blank">tacked a measure</a> to repeal the mandate on to a continuing resolution. It was a non-starter.




  • Reinstating Anti-Sodomy Laws


    In the midst of a campaign for governor, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/ken-cuccinelli-sodomy_n_3007731.html" target="_blank">made an effort</a> to reinstate a state anti-sodomy law that had recently been struck down by the courts. Cuccinelli hoped to use the law -- which <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cuccinelli-wants-rehearing-virginias-anti-sodomy-law" target="_blank">technically banned</a> consensual anal and oral sex, for <em>both gay and straight people</em>, despite the Supreme Court's 2003 <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em> ruling that found such bans unconstitutional -- in order to prosecute an earlier case. Cucinelli's appeal <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/ken-cuccinelli-sodomy_n_3051758.html" target="_blank">ultimately failed</a>, but only after his campaign <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/ken-cuccinelli-crimes-against-nature-prison-capacity" target="_blank">refused to confirm or deny</a> if he himself had committed any of the "crimes against nature" that the law supposedly protected against.




  • Voting To Keep Gay Sex Illegal


    A law determining that sex between gay people is illegal has been on the books in Montana for almost 40 years, despite the fact that it can no longer be enforced due to a state Supreme Court ruling and <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>. When state lawmakers undertook an effort to repeal the obsolete measure in April, however, not all were willing to take the symbolic step in favor of gay rights. In fact, a total of 38 Republicans voted against the measure, a stand that drew a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/amanda-curtis-montana_n_3046636.html" target="_blank">pointed response</a> from their Democratic colleague, state Rep. Amanda Curtis (D). Curtis even said she was quite tempted to punch one of her Republican colleagues, but it looks like that didn't happen. Watch her explain why she didn't in the video to the left, starting at around the 2:10 mark. And <a href="https://www.facebook.com/amanda.curtis.56614?fref=ts" target="_blank">follow her on Facebook here</a>. Despite their resistance, state lawmakers <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130411/us-montana-gay-sex/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics" target="_blank">ultimately passed the measure</a>, meaning a bunch of "felons" in the state are about to lose some serious street cred.<BR><BR>




  • Keeping Gay Teens Scared Of Jail Time


    When the Texas state Senate <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/rare-gay-rights-bill-passes-senate-committee/nXHRt/" target="_blank">made a rare, yet small move</a> to help enhance legal protections for sexually active gay teens in April, one Republican, state Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), voted against the measure. In voting no, Schwertner rejected an effort to extend the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/texas-romeo-and-juliet-law_n_3054471.html" target="_blank">state's "Romeo and Juliet" law</a> -- which protects teens engaged in consensual sex from being prosecuted for sex crimes -- to gay teens as well. Currently, gay teens who have sex with one another risk felony charges of sexual indecency with a child. A similar law is on the books in Nevada, where the ACLU <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/crime-against-nature-statute-nevada-aclu_n_3015565.html" target="_blank">has announced</a> it is joining a fight against the statute.<BR><BR>




  • Canceling 'Sex Week'


    In March, a <a href="http://sexweekut.org/schedule/" target="_blank">weeklong, student-produced series of events</a> dedicated to sexual safety and awareness at the University of Tennessee emerged as a nemesis of state Republicans. After some griping, they successfully stripped state tax dollars from the "Sex Week" budget, thereby eliminating sex from the entire campus for a week. Wait, no. In fact, despite all the conservative bluster, "Sex Week" <a href="http://www.wate.com/story/21906010/uts-sex-week-gets-underway" target="_blank">kicked off as planned</a> in April, with help from some independent donors who presumably understood that because every week at college is sex week, <a href="http://sexweekut.org/schedule/" target="_blank">it's ok to discuss</a> everything "From a Rocky Bottom to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Top" target="_blank">Rocky Top</a>." Well played, Sex Week UT.<BR><BR>





>br>