Public assistance and reduced abortion rates

There was a "run" on abortions in 1989 after Morgentaler won at the SCC. Many women were streamed into abortion by greedy doctors trading women for favours as the IVF biz told hold in Ontario. 50% of gynecologists eventually stopped doing live birth in favour of exclusive abortion practices. Many Ob/Gyn's who were lobbying the gov't for higher 'specialist doctor pay' left the province. From this excerpt below, I learn that the availability of public assistance and lessening of stereotypes reduced abortions and adoptions. Therefore, a stranglehold on public assistance for lone mothers is about increasing adoption rates, and there was an "Expert Panel on Fertility and Adoption" in this regard as well. It's clear that if public assistance rates were high enough, almost no women would abort of give up their children. Contraception use is high. 

Biological mother

In 1989, 38 per cent of all pregnancies of single women under 25 in Canada ended in abortion. Infants resulting from two per cent of single mother pregnancies were placed for adoption and the children resulting from the remaining 60 per cent of single mother pregnancies were raised by the single mother. During the preceding decade, the proportion of abortions had dropped significantly, the proportion of adoptions had dropped by almost 50 per cent and the proportion of single mothers caring for their children had increased dramatically. The availability of public financial assistance and a more liberal public acceptance of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers raising their children seem to be major factors in this trend. Mothers who placed their children for adoption stated their reasons as including an inability to provide a stable home environment, lack of income, lack of family support and desire to avoid interruption of schooling or a career. Biological mothers of adopted children are concerned that their children be adopted into a home which can provide as much child care and emotional support as possible in the early days following placement of the child.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1996/1996canlii8150/1996canlii8150.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAjImh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyIgK2lsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSArY2hpbGQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=6

The adoptive parent in that case was back in court much later in her child's life. She made a claim of discrimination related to her son's special education accomodations. Read it here: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f9c2a238-1636-4c98-a1ac-277a58eb6bdb