Everything seemed to be falling into place for me when I discovered I was pregnant for the first time. I had just received a long-awaited promotion at my job and secured a lucrative side gig. With my anticipated increase in income, I was excited to move into a brand new apartment at the start of the following month.
However, a few weeks later, I found myself in a social services office, tears streaming down my face because I couldn’t afford food and didn’t qualify for food assistance. To make matters worse, the social worker thought it was an appropriate moment to discuss safe sex and pregnancy prevention. In her eyes, I wasn’t a college-educated professional with over a decade of work experience or someone who actively contributed to society. I was simply viewed as a poor black woman, a “baby mama” trying to exploit the system for “free money.”
It’s disheartening to see how those living in poverty are treated in this country, particularly women. They often face harsh judgment and intrusive scrutiny about their personal lives. Society expects them to relinquish their right to have their own thoughts and feelings, especially regarding their financial decisions and reproductive health.
The underlying assumption is that having children is the only reason a woman might find herself in poverty. This notion is incredibly frustrating. Who has the right to dictate when or if a woman should become a mother? Shouldn’t financial status not determine one’s right to a family?
Children are undeniably expensive. I won’t argue against that. However, a woman’s choice to become a mother is not the root cause of poverty in America. What truly contributes to this issue is the lack of access to comprehensive healthcare, insufficient resources for financial literacy and job readiness, and systemic privileges like race and generational wealth that keep the affluent in their position while leaving the impoverished behind.
Certainly, education about and access to contraception is crucial. According to Upstream, an organization dedicated to improving access to birth control, nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, with unplanned pregnancies among impoverished women being five times that of their wealthier counterparts.
This is indeed a pressing issue that Upstream and other organizations are actively addressing. Unplanned pregnancies stemming from inadequate access to contraception contradict the tenets of pro-choice. However, whether a pregnancy is planned or not, it is not the root of poverty. While ensuring all women can access birth control is a step toward reducing unplanned pregnancies, it won’t magically eliminate poverty.
You may be wondering why I’m bringing this up. A recent article in the New York Times by Laura Green raised the question of whether contraception could be the key to alleviating poverty. She highlighted Upstream’s efforts in Delaware to implement their program in health centers throughout the state. The coverage suggests that long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as IUDs, are the preferred method of birth control, though they do provide options for women based on their needs. They even offer same-day access.
Sounds great, right? However, if we consider the claim that “mothers of unplanned children tend to give birth at younger ages, leave school sooner, and earn less later in life,” is it fair to pressure women into choosing a LARC without giving them adequate time to understand the implications? Are we undermining their ability to make informed decisions about their contraceptive options by presenting LARC as the primary choice and urging immediate decisions?
It’s a precarious situation to impose control over the reproductive choices of economically disadvantaged women under the guise of assistance. Organizations like Upstream and other social services must be vigilant in how they communicate their objectives, ensuring they are helpful and informative rather than prescriptive when promoting LARC as the go-to option for every woman who seeks care.
While access to affordable healthcare, including contraception, is vital, the notion that contraception alone can resolve poverty should not even be part of the conversation until we address fundamental issues such as raising the minimum wage, bridging the gender wage gap, and providing affordable childcare for working moms. We must also consider how to support mothers like I once was—working hard yet not receiving fair compensation.
The absence of money is what drives people into poverty—not the presence of children. Stripping women of their autonomy and treating them as if they need to be “fixed” is harmful to their sense of self. If we genuinely want to break the cycle of poverty, we must start by empowering mothers and respecting their capacity as thoughtful, responsible individuals capable of making significant decisions about their families without external interference.
In summary, while access to contraception is important, it is not a standalone solution to poverty. It’s essential to address the broader systemic issues that contribute to economic hardship.
For further reading on related topics, check out this insightful article on intracervical insemination. For those interested in learning more about artificial insemination, visit Make a Mom, a trusted resource. Additionally, CCRM IVF’s blog offers excellent information on pregnancy and home insemination.