Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage? I Think So

[kpete]

Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage? I Think So
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/09/will-stupak-amendment-force-women-whove-miscarried-lose-insurance-coverage-i-think-so

By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."

....

I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks. I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.

[SidDithers]

1. Wouldn't that fall under "health of the mother"?...nt

Sid

[bain_sidhe]

8. There is no "health of the mother" exception

There's only an exception for the life of the mother.

[haele]

9. No, health of the mother is only a potential health issue, she has to already the complications.

Back in the late 80's, a former rentmate of mine had fetal complication where the fetus died in utero at about 14/16 weeks; her OBGYN, affiliated with a Catholic hospital, was not trained to do abortions and the other doctors he would be able to refer her to would not do an abortion unless it was "for the health of the mother". They defined "health of the mother" as clear potential or imminent death or permanent disability, not potential sterility (the lack of ability to bear children is not a disability), the mental trauma and a few months of physical discomfort while waiting to pass a dead fetus.
So, she had to face the gauntlet of the local anti-abortion protesters, go to the local Planned Parenthood clinic, and get it done there. Which took guts (they had a serious lack of personal boundaries, and were known to push or jostle women going in at that time), but to force her to wait until either the fetus passed or sepsis developed would have been even more of a mental trauma.
Since we're in San Diego, it's not too difficult (you just have to get past the nutjobs to access the clinic). However, anyone that does not live in a municipality state where Planned Parenthood is allowed to have a clinic that provides abortions, it can be a major logistical nightmare.

Haele

[azmouse]

2. 10 years ago I had a blighted ovum pregnancy

that did not self-expel at 8 weeks. I needed a D&C (abortion) to avoid infection and further complications.

I understand what you posted, and I feel your pain.

:hug:

[liberalhistorian]

3. I'm truly sorry for your loss and what you had to

go through. I know how difficult that must have been.

I understand where you're coming from in the issue you're trying to raise, but I do think it's a bit different. Miscarriages are known as "spontaneous abortions" and I believe they will be considered medically different from "regular" elective abortions by insurance companies. They ARE medically different, frankly.

[Demeter]

11. That NEVER Stopped an Insurance Comp[any Before

and it won't stop now, either. This bill is worse than the present conditions, it converts sins of omission to sins of commission, with the full force of the government behind it.

[sandnsea]

4. Require every policy to have an abortion rider

Funded and administered separately. Problem solved.

Although a miscarriage falls in the category of life of the mother, because the reason they do the D&C is to prevent infection. But now that hysteria is running rampant on the topic, I don't expect common sense to suddenly kick in.

On edit:

You need to go back to your insurance company and get them to pay it. I thought my local Catholic hospital refused to call D&C's abortions because of religion. I now think it might be for insurance coverage.

[peace13]

5. Thanks for posting this.

It is such a sad story. My friend had twins die at four months gestation. She actually had to go to an abortion clinic to have them removed. The hospital wanted her to wait until her labor started and she just could not do it mentally. In the end while the procedure did remove the fetuses earlier the experience at the clinic was not good. I am sure that insurance that did not cover abortions would not have covered my friend's procedure. It is all too sad. People just don't understand that we don't live in a black and white world.

[Lefty48197]

6. This is a great question for the philosophy and ethics experts.

Removing the dead fetus would technically be considered an abortion whether it was done mechanically or chemically. Leaving the dead fetus in there to wait for a miscarriage has consequences made clear by this testimony. How would they balance these issues?

[Lance_Boyle]

10. Not philosophically difficult, even for the forced birthers.

Their objection to abortion is that it ends a life. Removing a dead fetus does not end a life.

[cbdo2007]

13. True...it's just dependent on how the D & C procedure is defined by your insurance I guess.

My wife had a D & C a few years ago as well. I know it didn't fall under "abortion" though because we aren't covered for abortion. This probably IS defined already both in laws and in hospitals/insurances but I realize this information can be somewhat hard to find.

It's true though, no one is trying to confuse anyone about the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. One ends the a life, the other does not, just like this responder person says.

[FLyellowdog]

7. Excellent point and one that should be addressed by our lawmakers.nt

[Demeter]

12. I Don't How Many Women Have to Say So Before We Are Believed

This bill is worse than useless. It is harmful in its purpose and intention, and its execution is sure to cause even more deaths and disabilities than we experience now, without it.