10 reasons abortion must be covered

// added October 28, 2009 // 18 comments //
Image...
WakeUpPeople

more from News:

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/index.html?story=/mwt/broadsheet...

1. Abortion is legal medical care. "Abortion is a legal right, and it takes medical care to exercise that right," says Judy Waxman, vice-president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. (For their healthcare reform campaign, click here.) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also chimes in here (PDF).

2. Abortion is common, mainstream medical care. It is one of the most common surgical procedures in America.

3. Abortion is already broadly covered. Between 50 and 85 percent of women who have private insurance, including employer-sponsored plans, have coverage for abortion care.

4. Covering abortion does not raise the abortion rate. As Gloria Feldt points out, "Countries like France, Germany and the Netherlands routinely cover abortion in their national health plans, and have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world."

5. Covering abortion makes abortion safer. Out of pocket, abortion can be expensive, all the more so as the pregnancy progresses. Yet women who take time to "save up" only wind up paying more -- and taking more risk. Feldt: "When abortion is covered, women who choose abortion do so earlier in their pregnancy, and with less risk to their health." Seventy-five thousand women die each year worldwide -- and many times that suffer lifelong disability -- due to unsafe abortions, usually obtained where abortion is illegal or highly restricted. "These are public health issues that also have economic ramifications beyond the cost of abortion," says Jodi Jacobson, senior political editor of RH Reality Check.

6. Covering abortion is what the people want. According to a recent poll by the Mellman Group, voters oppose reform that would prohibit insurance companies from covering abortion. The only subgroup of voters in which a majority favors such a restriction are established antiabortion voters. But even among them, 39 percent oppose restrictions on abortion coverage.

7. Excluding abortion from coverage sends us down a slippery "moral" slope. "Government policies that are based on the theory that private policyholders should not be forced to see their premiums used to cover things they consider immoral would result in a return to the days when contraception was not covered in individual plans for unmarried women and pregnancy was excluded in individual insurance plans and only covered in 'family plans,'" Frances Kissling told Broadsheet, recalling that this was the case when she entered the insurance market. Should people who oppose sex outside of marriage determine who gets covered for childbirth? By the same argument, we could also -- for example -- exclude coverage for HIV and AIDS if contracted through homosexual conduct." To which Katha Pollitt adds: "That many people disapprove of abortion is irrelevant. In a democracy, every citizen sees their tax dollars go for things they thing are wrong."

8. And about that "elective" business. Kissling: "Let's have insurance companies hold an annual poll of subscribers and decide on a majority basis what gets covered. Let's especially ask if they want their premiums to pay for obesity-related diseases, smoking-related diseases, STDs, neonatal intensive care where the life expectancy is less than 5 percent and put a cap on care for people over 80."

9. Without coverage, there is no "choice." Sex -- a natural human drive for most -- entails risks. Even with the best prevention measures, there will be unintended pregnancies. Jacobson: "Women must be able to make the choice of whether or not to bear children because unintended pregnancy entails emotional, financial and psychic costs that will be borne only or largely by the woman."

more at link...
  1. groups:
    News,   Current Tonight,   Progressive America,   Healthcare
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  US News,  Health Care Reform,  Abortion,  1 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka

18 comments // 10 reasons abortion must be covered

  • noxidereus
  • My_America
    • 0
      My_America  

    • Are you kidding me? Abortion is an elective procedure (unless in the case of the mothers health). It may be legal but so is a nose or breast job. IF we think the Government should cover healthcare (which I think is the wrong way to go) elective pocedures should not or ever be covered.

      If a private insurance company wants to offer elective coverage that's fine. The individual has the choice to purchase that coverage (Pro or Con).

      Our tax money should not fund these type of elective procedures no matter how you come down on the issue of Abortion.

    • 3 months ago
  • noxidereus
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • My_America:

      Read reason number 10 to rebut your stance on elective procedures. The decision to have an abortion is hardly as superficial as getting a breast enhancement or a nose job. Every pregnancy has risks to the mother. The question is: is the mother willing to accept those risks to her life or not? If not, there is an alternative protected by law.

    • 3 months ago
  • My_America
    • 0
      My_America  
    • My_America:

      @wake up
      I read reason #10. I guess I forgot since it says reason #10 next to it we must not disagree.

      You are right having a child contains certain medical risks (so does gettingout of bed). Therefore it should be covered in protecting the medical health not because a woman had sex with an ugly guy at a bar and he didn't call her the next day (of course this is not the case for every woman - but making a point).

      It was elective decision for the woman to have sex and it will be elective decision for that same woman to abort the child. The decision to have breast implants or nose jobs are hardly superficial decisions either and have someof the same risks involved.

      These elective procedures should not be covered with our (my) tax dollars.

    • 3 months ago
  • noxidereus
  • spacemikey
    • 0
      spacemikey [removed]  

    • I got a better Idea; QUIT FUKCING!!!

      I understand medical necessity in some cases but it's about stupid to just offer up abortions to whomever decided they shouldn't have fuct stupid...

      We don't even have a national health care plan yet, people who have serious problems (other than being too damn loose) can't get the help they need.
      (oh and the majority of private insurers aren't going for this shit)

      This is irresponsible.

      With all the damn "sex toy" commercials we have to sit through, I'm sure there is a more realistic, less selfish solution.

      The problem isn't people having unintended pregnancies, the problem is a moral/ethical degradation of our society. But hey making it easier to overlook, yeah great solution...

    • 3 months ago
  • noxidereus
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • spacemikey:

      Unfortunately, your opinion will not stop people from having unprotected sex. Your opinion will not apply to every circumstance of unplanned pregnancy. Your opinion will not care for the children if abortion were illegalized. Your opinion will not pay for the medical bills, food stamps, CPS, foster care stipends, education, and possible juvenile detention of the unwanted children. So with that said, let's stop thinking that the reality of the situation will change because your opinion tells you it is wrong. Reproductive rights are protected by law, and seeing as how it is a medical procedure, it needs to be covered by insurance.

      I would suggest that the govt give individuals the option to opt into the pro-choice plan or the pro-life plan. If you choose pro-life, not one dime of your premiums will go toward an abortion. If you choose pro-choice, your premiums will be available to protect women's reproductive rights. Just a suggestion. I'd be interested to hear your opinion of my idea.

    • 3 months ago
  • neodobby
  • noxidereus
  • WakeUpPeople
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • spacemikey:

      @WakeUp

      I think your suggestion is somewhat logical, however I disagree with this solution because I do not think we should open the door to discrimination in our policies. Abortion is a legal procedure, and America should recognize the right of women to be covered for it. I see it as somewhat similar to a situation where a fundamentalist Christian religious group doesn't want any of their money to go towards helping Muslims, or gays, or a white supremacy group not wanting any of their money going towards non-Aryans, or whatever.

      I don't think that people should have the option to enter a plan that doesn't cover certain groups of people. I see anti-choice as discrimination against women, so I don't think that there should be an official option that legitimizes any kind of discrimination. Also, providing such an option would be a violation of the separation of church and state because it gives special favor to a particular religious belief. Either we are a country that recognizes the civil rights of everybody or we are not. I don't think we should go half-way on that.

      That's just my opinion though. I would agree to your suggestion only if it was the only way to at least partially protect womens' reproductive rights, but I think it would be unfortunate if it came to that, and I wouldn't consider it to be a permanent solution.

      [Sorry for the multiple posts. I kept posting my reply in the wrong place.]

    • 3 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • spacemikey:

      "...so I don't think that there should be an official option that legitimizes any kind of discrimination."

      I see your point. It's just one of those things that will never EVER be understood or accepted by those that oppose it. I would hate for health care reform to stall on this one issue for a lack of compromise, but you are right that it would justify their discrimination.

    • 3 months ago
  • wayseeker
  • Progresshiv
  • good_stuff
  • LowShred
  • Atalanda_Cameron
  • noxidereus
  • pakazak
    • 0
      pakazak  

    • is abortion legal?

      then what's the beef?

      don't condone it? don't have one.

      don't want to pay taxes to fund it (even in the most indirect way)? become a tax protestor.

      don't like any of these choices? move

      see, 4 easy steps.

    • 3 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • 10. Megan Carpentier, former Jezebel writer and current editor of News and Politics of Air America Radio, sums it up thusly: "Why should abortion be covered? Because sometimes abortion is medically necessary, and the government shouldn't be writing regulations from Washington that tell a woman in Kansas when that is. Because exempting cases of rape and incest, as the Hyde Amendment does, means that women who are victims of rape and incest don't get the coverage they're supposed to have anyway, because there's no way to police whether their pregnancies are the result of government-approved circumstances. Because there's no actual government money that's going to get spent on the so-called public option, so it's a question of whether you, with your own money, can get insurance that covers what you choose to have it cover. And because eliminating coverage that currently exists through federal law is just another back-door way for the antiabortion movement to make it more difficult and expensive for women to get a legal medical procedure, since they can't convince women not to have abortions on the 'merits' of their arguments."

    • 3 months ago

Add your comment

most popular
videos on current tv

current videos