Abortion Insurance?
I know that much of the health care debate has surrounded the government funding of abortion, and we all know where I fall on that debate. However, I had not read how the Senate bill would implement the policy until I read this Washington Times article:
The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.
Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.
The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.
The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?
Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”
Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact, I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”
Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.
Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.
This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.
In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.
Anyone else sickened by this?
Tags: Abortion, Feministing, health care, health care reform, Mary Ann Sorrentino, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion, Pro-Choice Caucus
Loading...
March 11th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
[...] Conservative » Abortion Insurance?Posted 71 minutes [...]
March 11th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
As is usual, there is a lot more grey in this area than folks want to look at.
First some facts about current abortion coverage. From the Kaiser Family Foundation: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8021.pdf
“It is estimated that in 2003, 46% of workers with employer insurance were an in plans that offer abortion coverage, and a study conducted in 2002 found that 87% of plans offered abortion as a covered benefit.
The cost of an abortion varies depending on factors such as location, facility, timing, and type of procedure. A clinic-based abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation is estimated to cost between $400 and $550, whereas an abortion at 20-21 weeks’ gestation is estimated to cost $1,250-$1,800. The vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy. In 2004, 89% were in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and only 1% were at 21 weeks or later. In general, abortions performed in hospitals are more expensive than those performed at clinics.”
According to this AP story: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/women_face_tough_choices_on_ab.html
“13 percent [of abortions] by Guttmacher Institute estimates — are paid for directly by private insurance. The vast majority are paid for in cash, even by women with abortion coverage who do so out of privacy concerns.”
So women who get abortions due to unplanned pregnancy are paying in cash for privacy reasons. The real question comes about when you have situations such as when an ultrasound identifies a fetal anomaly at 20 weeks of gestation which indicates that the fetus will not survive. While the situation may not be immediately life threatening to the woman,
under the Senate bill restrictions, she may have to pay for an abortion out of pocket, and at this advanced stage or given a medical complication, it would likely be conducted in a hospital, significantly more expensive than a clinic-based procedure. This situation could apply to women in a multitude of circumstances, including those with underlying chronic conditions, those who develop other acute conditions during pregnancy, or those who have
incomplete miscarriages that require subsequent intervention, such as a dilation and curettage (D&C).
All of the women in these situations planned to bring the baby full term, but due to medical complications can’t. They may not have bought abortion coverage separately because they didn’t plan an elective abortion, but now, due to extremely restrictive Senate rules, they will have to pay for this procedure out of pocket and it will cost potentially thousands of dollars.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
The Pro-Choice Caucus implies that women would choose to pay for additional coverage for abortion. That’s a premeditated decision. That is what bothered me and inspired the post. Women are now planning their abortions in advance. I think society’s approach to abortion is just wrong and displays how little value we place on life.
I never discussed the payment method in abortion due to privacy issues. That’s a completely separate topic. I’m discussing the overall approach and opinion of abortion that feminists are pushing on our society. You missed the point of the post.
However, I still think that it is better to make one woman pay for a D&C than allowing abortion on demand to be covered.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
You are a very bright lady. And because the datechguy gave you the good housekeeping seal of approval, I’ll let you use my name (kidding!)
The last Adrienne I met on the web was decidedly unfriendly. Her loss.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:41 am
[...] not a bug Adrienne, it’s a feature By datechguy Concerning this post Adrienne, no actually I’m not sickened because it’s what I [...]
March 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I’m confused… You wrote, “The Pro-Choice Caucus implies that women would choose to pay for additional coverage for abortion” and “The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance.”
I thought the article was saying that the Pro-Choice Caucus *didn’t* like the fact that the Senate bill required women to send a separate check to pay for abortion coverage. It seems that the Pro-Choice Caucus in fact does not want women to have to pro-actively choose to obtain abortion coverage.
So if the idea of women conscientiously choosing to pay for “abortion insurance” irks you, shouldn’t you be in fact agreeing with the PCC (on this very, very, limited point)?
Of course, I would assume that the PCC doesn’t want to have women do this because the PCC would rather have abortions already covered.
(For the record – I am strongly against using public funds to pay for abortions.)
March 13th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Interested Citizen, I was bothered by the inference that women are calculating and anticipating the need for an abortion by purposely opting into abortion insurance.
I’m bothered that we live in a society where women have no qualms about proactively seeking out abortion coverage on their insurance plans just as much as I’m bothered that Democrats want my tax dollars to fund abortion. Thus, I’m upset at both concepts.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@Adrienne Thanks! It’s always nice to discover another conservative Adrienne out there. I’m glad that you spell your name correctly!