Staff writer Joann Stevens and staff photographer Vanessa Barnes went to the Capitol Hill area to ask District residents their views on whether the city should pay for abortions for low income women.

Quentin Banks, 55, attorney, 16th and Underwood NW: "Yes, because there's a very definite, continuing need. I don't see any other substitutes and this seems a proper way to take care of it."

Jean Greene, 40, judge, Southwest resident: "Yes. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get them. And if you need one and can't get one that's bad. You might have to go on welfare to afford your family. I think people should have a choice."

Frederick Lyles, 40, conservation specialist, National Black Veterans, resident at Florida and 7th Streets NE: "Yes, because there's so many poor whites and blacks that really can't afford the kids. But human nature being what it is they're still having them. If they don't want the child, I think they should have the right to do what they want."

Renee McRae, 19, clerk typist, resident at First and Quincy Streets NE: "Yeah, I believe they should pay for them, if the women can't get the money to pay for the abortions. And it wouldn's be fair to bring a child in the world if you can't take care of it the government to pay for them. But in some cases the government should."

Vicky Metcalf, 26, law student, resident at 18th and Streets NW: "They absolutely should. It's only fair to them (low-income women). Basically the city pays for services for poor people. If they don't pay for abortions for poor people, it means they're letting richer people have a medical service in they're denying poor people.

Robert Thomas, 35, resource communications specialist, resident at Hayes Street NE: "No, I feel women should have all the babies they want to have. I think it's a damn shame they're paying for it now."

Brenda Williams, 20, clerk, Anacostia resident: "No. I don't think it's right to kill. Although the baby's not born yet, I still don't think it's right."