The choice to abort a baby is often driven by poverty and isolation. One study states, “Sixty percent [of women who aborted their children] reported they would have preferred to give birth if they had received more support from others or had more financial security.¹” Another study found that half of women seeking an abortion had incomes below the Federal Poverty Level and three-quarters did not have enough money to pay for basic necessities.² In this Guttmacher Institute study, the top reasons listed for seeking an abortion were, “a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).”³ Clearly, the women behind these numbers feel isolated and trapped in an endless cycle of desperation.

A 2022 article from the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy argued that “Overturning Roe is a Poverty Issue.”⁴ In the article, Hope Sheils cites numerous studies demonstrating the financial strain an unplanned pregnancy has on a person, especially someone already in poverty. 72% of women who were turned away from a wanted abortion lived in poverty after 5 years, versus the 55% of those living in poverty who did receive the abortion. It’s no surprise that having children can add financial burden, especially without the proper support and preparation. But rather than asserting that the solution to maternal poverty is abortion, shouldn’t the church and civil society help these moms bear their new responsibility? Ensuring they are supported financially and relationally could prevent their desire to ever seek out an abortion.

Given this, pro-life ministry must extend its reach beyond protecting the unborn to providing a safe community for those facing an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Not only that, but preventing crisis pregnancies by addressing a woman’s relational and support needs early on enables us to intercede before poverty and isolation pressure her into making a tragic decision. As many in the pro-life space have already proclaimed, advocating for life includes supporting mothers so they can have a flourishing, abundant life, even after keeping their pregnancies.

Such anticipatory intervention—and the lasting change it brings—will come from pro-life laws and the application of relationship-driven, effective charity, which not only treats symptoms, but the root causes of poverty and isolation. In their book When Helping Hurts, authors Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett define poverty as the result of brokenness in four foundational relationships: with God, self, others and the rest of creation (p. 58).⁵ While an individual has significant control over those relationships, this model also acknowledges that the relationships interact with economic, political, social, and religious systems outside of an individual’s control. Yet, in most cases, the basic path out of poverty for an individual will involve strengthening relationships in these broad categories.

What’s really going on?
Focusing on those relationships means resisting the temptation to simply remedy the situation. For instance, when faced with poverty’s symptoms (typically, lack of money, homelessness, and food insecurity) we tend to react logically, reasoning the solution is to hand out cash, provide a house, or donate food. Situation addressed, problem solved, right?

As easy and convenient as it would be to believe that, the answer is “no.” Until we help mothers facing abortion or poverty restore those relationships, we’ll continue treating the symptoms and never solve the real issues.

The good news: upstream solutions are already underway.

While not every self-described poverty alleviation program gets this right, there are many organizations working upstream to restore those relationships. In many cases, the leaders of these organizations don’t think of themselves as a part of the pro-life space per se, yet they are stepping into tumultuous environments to provide the stability necessary for every life to thrive.

A great example is Better Together. This True Charity Network member based in Florida has been helping families flourish since 2015, offering long-term development opportunities rather than just crisis relief.

Regarding the foster care crisis and families being fractured, founder Megan Rose noticed, “Families weren’t falling apart because they didn’t love their children. They were breaking down because they didn’t have support systems of their own — because poverty, job loss, or a health emergency pushed them past the breaking point. They had no one to call for help.”

So she explored the question, “What if the church got there first to catch families before they fall?” That’s why Better Together provides a safety net for parents in their time of need through trusted volunteers. According to their website, they’ve created a network of host families, fully vetted, to temporarily care for children. This gives parents time to get back on their feet without the fear of losing custody looming over them. They also get to know each of these families so they can determine their unique needs and find empowering solutions.

Given job loss is one of the greatest threats to family stability, they partner with churches to host job fairs, helping young families overcome barriers to finding work. Most importantly, they cultivate a lasting community where volunteers build long-term relationships with those families for continued support after the crisis has passed. In other words, they help families build their social capital. 

By targeting the foster care crisis, families they help stabilize are far less likely to seek an abortion. That means the same relationship building strategies can be applied successfully in pregnancy resource ministries and churches.

What is the effective charity movement?
Many churches and nonprofits are caught in a cycle of giving relief without seeing any difference in the lives of the people they serve—limiting their impact on poverty and abortion reduction. The effective charity movement was born out of a desire to reverse that trend by accomplishing lasting change through relationship-based poverty alleviation. Books like Toxic Charity, When Helping Hurts, and the Tragedy of American Compassion have given voice to this dilemma and provided the alternative relational frameworks that drive the movement’s success.

In the same vein, True Charity is an equipping organization that grew out of the practical experience of our founding rescue mission, Watered Gardens in Joplin, Missouri. Over the years, we’ve learned two very important lessons.

First, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Loving our neighbors with our hearts and minds means rather than solving problems through public and private bureaucracies unfamiliar with a person’s true needs, affiliations and subsidiarity are key relational components that lead to successful long-term outcomes.

The former solicits help from those closest to the person because they know his or her true needs. The latter seeks solutions at the most local level possible — starting with the individual and working out through concentric rings of responsibility including family, friends, church, and community nonprofits. Employing both prevents charities from stepping between a person and their natural affiliations (resulting in inaccurate care and disturbing the right order of their relationships).

Second, empowering people toward self-sufficiency means helping them recognize they have the ability to make a positive contribution to society. Thus, effective charity involves equipping those we serve with the skills and tools they need to lay hold of that capacity. Enabling them to exchange work for necessities restores their dignity so they can avoid the shame handouts alone often bring. Granted, providing a hand-up rather than a handout takes much more time and energy. But it has a much better chance of leading someone to a flourishing life.

Apply these strategies to support life.

Rather than starting from scratch, the direct care providers in pro-life sector should link arms with the effective charity movement by partnering with existing empowerment programs and, where new programs are needed, creating those programs in line with best practices. As a clearinghouse for some of the best ideas and organizations in the movement, we’re confident you’ll find the True Charity Network a useful entry point for either kind of collaboration.

Our network organizations range from church food pantries and homeless shelters to pregnancy resource centers. One of note is LifePlan in Niles, Michigan. Through its innovative “give-back” program, clients can earn items they need by serving in LifePlan’s Boutique. Not only does it provide practical support for clients, it also gives LifePlan more opportunities to build relationships with them, increase their social capital, and encourage their dignity and agency.

While we have documented dozens of effective models, basic ideas for partnerships could involve offering a young mom material assistance in exchange for her participation in a local church’s mentorship program. Another would be connecting an expectant mother to a local food co-op where she and her family can receive the food they need, but also give back in some capacity and plug-in to a loving community. Holistic case management could combine goal-setting with developmental classes that help a father learn the skills he needs to raise kids with confidence.

If you have grown weary of seeing little lasting change among those you serve, you are not alone. Members of the effective charity movement have experienced the same discouragement. But take heart. There is another way. By applying effective charity principles pre and post-crisis, transformation is possible for those we serve. Together, we can introduce people to something they may have never known — love, hope, stability, new ideas and opportunities, and paths leading to the flourishing life we all hope for.

= = =

1. Reardon D C, Rafferty K A, Longbons T (May 11, 2023) The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on Women’s Satisfaction and Mental Health. Cureus 15(5): e38882. doi:10.7759/cureus.38882
2. Foster DG, Biggs MA, Ralph L, Gerdts C, Roberts S, Glymour MM. “Socioeconomic Outcomes of Women Who Receive and Women Who Are Denied Wanted Abortions in the United States.” Am J Public Health. 2018 Mar;108(3):407-413.
3. Finer, L. B., Frohwirth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S., & Moore, A. M. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.37.110.05
4. Sheils, H. (2022, October 14). Overturning Roe is a poverty issue. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy (Blog). https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/overturning-roe-is-a-poverty-issue/
5. Corbett, S., & Fikkert, B. (2014). When helping hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor . . . and yourself (Revised & updated ed.). Moody Publishers.