To the editors:
Annapurna K. Hill (Letters, Nov. 16) expresses her intention to make a financial contribution to "UHS's abortion fund." She reasons that this money is necessary to ensure that students make informed decisions regarding the continuation of their pregnancies. Unfortunately, her argument reverses the reality of the situation.
The medical costs of pre- and post-natal care far exceed the monetary price of an abortion. More often, pregnant mothers find themselves forced into abortions by a system which, out of expediency, funds the cheaper alternative. If Ms. Hill plans to contribute financially to UHS, then I urge her to direct her money to these underfunded and overlooked areas. ROBERT J. ORTIZ '00 Nov. 16, 1998
Read more in Opinion
Third Party BluesRecommended Articles
-
The Silent Majority: Harvard's Unusually Quiet Debate About AbortionIt's nine-thirty on a chilly morning in January, and four Harvard students are yelling at the tops of their lungs.
-
Condemning Abortion ExtremistsLast Wednesday the Institute of Politics hosted the most ambitious panel in recent ARCO Forum history at the Kennedy School
-
Anti-Abortion CampaignIn an effort to publicize a little-known refund option that allows students to claim the a portion of their University
-
Abortion FundingSACRAMENTO, Calif.--A state appeals court recently ruled that the University of California may require students to pay mandatory health fees,
-
Members of Operation Rescue to Speak at EventThree speakers from Operation Rescue, a national pro-life organization, will appear at the eighth semi-annual Ivy League Coalition for Life
-
The Once and Future CourtF OR THE THOUGHTFUT and farsighted voter, nothing could have been more chilling than the prospect of Ronald Reagan casting
