I have a question about current abortion coverage.

[johnaries]

I would say that this is just a question and ask people not to "flame me", but I've been here since 2004 and I know better. :)

But, this is a serious "I don't know" question because I'm a guy and I've never needed an abortion. So I seriously "don't know".

It is in reference to the Stupid... errr, I mean Stupak... amendment. The amendment does make exceptions for incest, rape, or the health for the mother. Which is pretty much what the SCOTUS requires as I understand it.

Well, knowing how insurance companies try to exclude any payments they can, it seems to me that most insurance companies would claim that anything outside the above exceptions would be deemed "elective procedure" and would deny it.

So, my question is - is that true today? Will private health insurance plans currently pay for abortions that are not included in the "incest, rape, or health of the mother" exceptions? I really don't know, but I think it's an important question to put the Stupid... Stupak amendment in perspective.

[bigwillq]

1. Any time a woman is pregnant

it's a threat to her health.

[rd_kent]

13. It is?

If that is the case, then why do we allow women to make the choice to get pregnant and threaten their health? Your statement makes no sense to me.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Because women don't need your permission to do anything.

:shrug:

Oh wait, except to TERMINATE a pregnancy.

[rd_kent]

24. I never said a woman did....

I was making a point to the poster I replied to.....

[PeaceNikki]

28. No, you weren't.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)


Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

Occasional complications and side effects:

spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
future infertility
permanent disability
death.

[rd_kent]

35. Yes, I was

http://life.familyeducation.com/pregnancy/first-aid/48317.html

"Although the normal discomforts of pregnancy can be annoying, they are not life-threatening—and, when you're holding your new baby, who even remembers the swollen ankles, the UTIs, or the hemorrhoids!"

[PeaceNikki]

40. That's fuckin' precious.

Did you read what else is in the link?

[rd_kent]

65. Of course I did.

Why the fuck do you think I posted it?

[PeaceNikki]

66. Ya know what?

Clearly you are the primary authority on women's reproductive health and we should all be mesmerized by the depth and breath of your knowledge in addition to your compassion and on this topic. You continue offer valuable input while always being rational, reasonable and sane. I can only aspire to be as awesome as you someday.

Good day, sir.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

68. Good luck with that.

Keep aspiring.

[uppityperson]

56. Most of us remember those. Those that die from pregnancy related complications don't though.

[rd_kent]

64. Nice try to pull emotions into this.

The maternal mortality rate (according to a link provided by another poster below) is .011% in the US. Tragic for those families yes, but hardly a large enough number to be called a health risk. You probably have a better chance of drowning in your bathtub.

[etherealtruth]

85. Actually there are significant risks associated with pregnancy ...

I am the mother of three and gladly accepted those risks for the three children I have. No one should be forced to take that risk.

One must also look at the other health risks associated with pregnancy such post partum depression and psychosis, gestational diabetes, asthma ...

Clearly a part of the risk is the lack of access to good pre-natal health care

"Women are unnecessarily dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications because the U.S. is moving in a wrong direction," said Beneva Schulte of Women Deliver, a Washington-based group campaigning for women's reproductive rights and access to public health care.

Based on 2005 estimates, the U.N. analysis suggests that one in 4,800 women in the United States carry a lifetime risk of death from pregnancy. By contrast, among the 10 top-ranked industrialised countries, fewer than one in 16,400 are facing a similar situation.


http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39642

[bigwillq]

19. I believe in choice.

There are a lot of complications that can happen when a woman gets pregnant. I think its BS that the bill will only fund if because of rape, incest, or health of the mother. It should be covered in all cases because anytime a woman gets pregnant it's a threat to the mother.

[rd_kent]

23. I agree with you.....

but pregnancy, as a biological function, is NOT a threat to a womans health.

[PeaceNikki]

25. Oh yes it is.

It very much is.

[rd_kent]

30. Really? I beg to differ....

Just to be clear before this goes any further....I FULLY support a womans choice, for whatever reason.....To carry a child is a personal decision and no ones business but her own.....


Now, pregnancy, as a biological function, is NOT a threat to a womans health. Complications from an ABNORMAL pregnancy may be a threat, but a normal pregnancy is not. Why would you think it is?

[PeaceNikki]

32. Again. You don't know jack. Ever been pregnant?

Ever delivered a child? I have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6976518&mesg_id=6976814

[rd_kent]

36. No, I have not been pregnant, but I did deliver my own child....at home...

in a tub...on purpose...so there....

[REP]

86. I've had cancer; that doesn't make me an oncologist and your anecdotal experience doesn't equal data

It's nice you witnessed someone delivering without complications. You do realize that you watching something isn't the same as doing it, right?

[sandnsea]

34. Yes it is, normal every day pregnancy

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but you really should google up deaths due to pregnancy. Plain old pregnancy that somehow goes wrong. Blood pressure, toxemia.

We just had a doctor, who was married to another doctor, die in childbirth in my small town. I don't remember what went wrong, but she bled to death.

Pregnancy truly is a risk to a woman's health. A woman should not be forced to take on that risk if she doesn't want to.

Having said that, getting that pregnant woman health care is more important to me than getting her full abortion coverage.

[rd_kent]

41. "A woman should not be forced to take on that risk if she doesn't want to." I agree, 100%

Pregnancy truly is a risk to a woman's health. on that, we do not. A woman can have complications, sure, just like the woman you pointed out, but the default position on pregnancy is NOT that it is a threat to health.

We do not need to agree on this, thats ok. It is important that we agree that the whole process is a womans choice, and we DO agree on that.

[PeaceNikki]

37. Also, whatever your opinion *is* on choice, the fact that you're so sadly ignorant on the risks of

pregnancy clearly illustrates how very very VERY misunderstood women's health issues are by men. It's frankly chilling.

[rd_kent]

43. I am not ignorant on the risks...

you seem to be the ignorant one. I just went though a normal pregnancy with my wife and I delivered our child, at home, without assistance. So please, spare me the rant about how ignorant I am.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

57. And just how fast can "normal" turn "abnormal"? Answer...quite fast IF you are using those

terms to mean "normal"=nothing goes wrong, "abnormal"=any of a large group of problems.

[rd_kent]

61. But that is the point...

Most pregnancies ARE normal. Anyway, it doesnt matter. Have a nice day....

[uppityperson]

74. "Most pregnancies ARE normal. Anyway, it doesnt matter." wtf? Actually no, don't bother. nt

[rd_kent]

81. WTF yourself? Why did YOU bother?

[noamnety]

59. You are mistaken.

"pregnancy, as a biological function, is NOT a threat to a womans health."

Wrong.

15 percent of deaths in adult women occur in maternity.

[rd_kent]

62. Really?

Can you link me to that stat? Are those deaths due to a COMPLICATION during pregnancy, which is no longer a NORMAL pregnancy? 1-1.5 women out of 10 experience complications http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html ( when you subtract women that did not, for whatever reason, receive adequate prenatal care) so 8-9 women out of 10 have no problems at all. That hardly makes a normal pregnancy a health risk. At any rate, what constitutes a health risk on THIS thread will be met with opposition from all sides, so no amount of bickering is gonna change that. If you are or are thinking of becoming pregnant, I wish you all the best. Seriously. Have a nice day.

[noamnety]

69. The data comes from the WHO.

I saw it linked here yesterday, but you could search on it.

It's pretty funny to say "well those are COMPLICATIONS for pregnancy, and therefore not normal." It's NORMAL for a large percentage of pregnancies to have complications - and for a significant percentage of those to result in death. I'm not following the logic of excluding all the ones with dangerous complications from the statistics, and then after excluding them claim that pregnancy isn't dangerous.

Heck, nothing is a safety risk, including being in combat, if you decide to throw out all the statistics where things go wrong.

[rd_kent]

70. But it is normal, thats the point.

At worst, 10%-15% experience complications. 85%-90% of women DO NOT experience complications, so I feel that it is safe to say that pregnancy, as a biological function, is NOT an automatic health risk. Taking a dump in the morning is not an automatic health risk, but people DO have complications and medical issue arising from it. See my point?

[noamnety]

72. By your logic, russian roulette is not a safety risk.

At worst, 15% experience death. 85% of single time Russian Roulette players DO NOT experience deadly complications, so I feel that it is safe to say that russian roulette is NOT an automatic safety risk.

Same statistics. 15%.

-------
You don't seem to grasp the concept of "RISK."

A pregnancy includes a 15% risk of complications that result in death (and a much higher risk of other serious complications - in that regard, russian roulette is actually safer for most women in the world.)

[rd_kent]

77. Not the same thing.

If you want to compare pregnancy to Russian roulette, then you have issues. The rub lies in the expectation. I do not feel women get pregnant and EXPECT to have complications. Do you? Do doctors? No, the EXPECTATION is that things will go (and usually do) normally.
My biggest heartburn is that pregnancies are NOT medical conditions, but ARE considered to be by many. Nonetheless, the important thing here is that we all agree that when it comes to pregnancy, it is a WOMAN'S decision, not anyone else's, right? On that I think we agree. Can we let it lay there?

[johnaries]

47. But wouldn't those complications be covered by "health of the mother"?

Granted, I know they are not in the "real world", but for legal purposes - would private insurance cover it?

[Justitia]

55. "Health" is NOT covered, only imminent death (life). Big difference.

[noamnety]

71. The consequences of complications aren't always predictable,

aren't always "treatable" and the antichoicers are generally dismissive of them (see above - apparently they think women get abortions to avoid the inconvenience of "swollen ankles."

I had lightheadedness and dizziness when I was pregnant. That was one of the "minor" complications - before the one that landed me in the hospital on IVs for an extended length of time, and not counting the complications that an ultrasound didn't pick up which would have definitely killed the baby and possibly me if I'd been doing the home birth deal in a bathtub instead of being where an ER was within reach. (Not that it matters, the apologists would have dismissed that then as not being a "normal" pregnancy if that had happened.)

Lightheadedness is considered a minor inconvenience, not a health risk to the mother.

That sounds great. My experience with it was that it wasn't a risk at all, just an inconvenience - until I was crossing an intersection as a pedestrian and blacked out halfway across the street.

One of my best friends blacked out after grocery shopping. She went down in the doorway. Once she went down, the autosensor that makes a door open didn't detect her, so it closed on her. And once it did that it felt an obstruction. So it reopened. But then the cameras saw that there wasn't a person there, so they slammed closed on her again. (and then opened again, slammed shut again, back and forth across her abdomen.)

It's a funny thing about blacking out. It's "an inconvenience". And not really treatable during pregnancy. People are dismissive of it as a minor side effect. And yet, if it happens at the wrong time, it can kill you.

[PeaceNikki]

73. As I said above,

The fact that some are so ignorant and frankly dismissive about the actual health risks of pregnancy clearly illustrates how very very VERY misunderstood women's health issues are by men. It's frankly chilling.

[Ilsa]

33. Here are some links for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/10/091026_maternal_mortality_ap.shtml
Maternal mortality: why so many mothers die giving birth


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8325685.stm
The US spends more money on mothers' health than any other nation in the world, yet women in America are more likely to die during childbirth than they are in most other developed countries, according to the OECD and WHO. The BBC's Laura Trevelyan has been trying to find out why.


We don't always know why some women are at more risk than others. A very healthy pregnancy can go bad near the end with pre-eclampsia, HELLP Syndrome, etc. I nearly stroked out with my first pregnancy when I was in labor, and I ended up with HELLP Syndrome.

As for why women get pregnant: about half the time they want to.

[rd_kent]

63. The maternity mortality rate is .001%.

According to the link you provided, 11 out of 100,000 pregnancies end in death. .011% is a minute number. The rate of complications is much higher, about 10% or 1 out of 10, which means 90% of women experience a normal pregnancy, hardly enough to call a pregnancy an automatic health risk.

[Ilsa]

80. I nearly died when I gave birth in 1996. That was proof enough for me.

[rd_kent]

83. Sorry to hear that, but you are the exception, not the rule.

and thats the point.

[Ilsa]

84. Getting prostate cancer is the exception, not the rule also. And alot of men

don't recover their sexuality after a prostatectomy. Does that mean they shouldn't even be allowed to have the rehabilitation to try? Or for insurance to spend the extra money on a procedure that is more likely to afford them a return of a healthy sex life?

You are talking about coverage for uncommon events. Men have them also. Would you want your congresscritter deciding your fate instead of you and your doctor?

[johnaries]

46. that may well be so, but I'm talking about a DIAGNOSED threat

that an insurance company may recognize.

How do they do it now? Whether right or wrong.

[johnaries]

48. So your insurance will pay for an abortion under any circumstances?

Whether right or wrong, that is the question.

[robinlynne]

2. I have kaiser. They take care of everything you need. no questions about why.

It is in a sort of private hidden basement place, with privacy and probably so right wing weirdos can't see in.

[robinlynne]

3. P.S. it is free. and feels like a safe place. all women wokring there.

[johnaries]

50. Cool! That's wonderful! I hope you let those who need it

in on the "secret". I know nothing. I don't need to know anything. Except just enough for my own piece of mind, of course.

[robinlynne]

53. well free is relative. the insurance is 400 a month.....I meant there's no copay.

[Lisa0825]

4. I am a woman, and I honestly don't know.

I haven't needed one, so I have not ever looked into that part of my insurance coverage. I know that when my sister was a teen, mom paid for it cash... We were all covered under Dad's USCG medical plan at the time.

[Xithras]

5. I just answered this in another thread, but here goes again.

Where I live, a surgical abortion from your regular OB will run you about $600. My current Anthem Blue Cross policy covers abortions for both my wife and teenage daughter (and me, technically, though I lack the parts to ever need one) with a $125 deductible. Abortions can also be obtained at a nearby clinic for about $300, if a woman is willing to let someone other than her regular doctor perform it, but insurance doesn't cover any of the cost since the "out of network" deductible is $500.

If Anthem were to retool my coverage at renewal so they could start offering the plan on the exchange, my wife and daughter would lose our current abortion coverage. As a result, they'd either have to pay ~$600 out of pocket to have their regular GYN perform one, or pay $300 out of pocket to the local clinic. Depending on how you look at it, you have increased the cost of the abortion either 2.5-fold or 5-fold.

[saracat]

8. Thank you. it is a pity the apologists refuse to understand this. May I use this example

as further clarification elswhere? i beleive it makes the point.

[Xithras]

15. Go right ahead, but don't think it will matter.

They're beyond letting mere "facts" influence them.

Even worse, for many, it's turned into an "US vs THEM" fight. Stupak and the Republicans have succeeded brilliantly at pitting the various liberal wings of the party against each other. Who's side are YOU on...the side of the chronically disabled and handicapped, or the side of womens rights and medical privacy? Apparently if you try to claim BOTH, you're an unrealistic idealist with no comprehension about how "real" politics works. According to them, we gotta choose one or the other.

[saracat]

17. You have a real understanding of this issue . I used to be criticized on DU for

political pragmatisim" . I am surprised to find myself lbabeldas an unrealistic idealist when i merely rfepresent what i bel.ieved was the party position on reproductive righrts. I am shocked that so mnay are willing to endorse retrogressive legislation to support the HCR merely so our party leadershio can claim a "win". I thought Democrats were better than that. I still hope they are though our leadership clearly is not.

[FLDCVADem]

10. Actually

Anthem could offer your current plan on the exchange, including abortion coverage, so long as they also offered one that was identical in every way EXCEPT for the abortion coverage.

[sandnsea]

21. I think that's the Senate bill

I don't think Stupak allows that because they still consider the one with abortion being helped with subsidies. That's why I think the solution is a rider paid for by personal funds, administered separately.

But if Stupak allows that, I'd sure be interested in knowing because that's a very reasonable alternative.

[FLDCVADem]

27. I read the text of the bill

and it said that any policy on the exchange that offers abortion coverage has to have an identical policy sans abortion coverage available as well.

I'll see if I can find the text again - I like to read these myself when possible, as so often mass hysteria ensues.

[sandnsea]

45. Here's the amendment

It defines the situations that funding can be applied; allows for a supplemental abortion policy to be purchased with private funds, and says that any policy that includes abortion that is purchased with private funds, has to have another policy available that doesn't include abortion. I don't think it stays what you think it does.

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment

[Xithras]

22. Not really.

In California every health insurance plan has to be pre-approved by the state, a process that takes a couple of years to complete and more than a million dollars to push through. There is no ala carte coverage option. Most states with insurance commissioners offices have something similar.

In order to offer any new policy in California, using the exchange, all of the insurance companies that do business here are going to need to submit new plans to the state for review and approval. Since Anthem is really big on "cost reduction", it's unlikely that they're going to incur the expense of getting a new coverage option certified by the state, and then continue to incur the expense of maintaining two different insurance options that are identical in every way other than abortion coverage (every plan has annual reporting requirements, so no provider with an eye on the bottom line is going to carry the expense of plans they don't "need"). It's far more cost effective for them to put together an Exchange compliant plan, get THAT certified by the state, and then slowly move their existing customers onto the new plan at renewal time. Remember, cost containment measures won't apply to non-exchange plans, so they can just jack up rates on the old plan until everyone leaves. I can hear the reps now: "You can not only save $500 a year by moving to the new policy, but you'll be eligible for a government subsidy that may further reduce your costs!" "Will I lose any coverage?" "No sir, you will not lose any coverage for any medical procedure that you will ever use."

Abortion coverage will be history within only a few years.

[sandnsea]

31. If an abortion rider is mandated

Or a duplicate policy with abortion coverage mandated, for EVERYBODY, then everyone who wants abortion coverage will have it in a few years.

There is a way to resolve this besides stomping feet and screaming no. We have got to start being problem solvers.

[saracat]

6. The language is different it requires the life of the mother to be in danger, not the "health"

and that is significant. A woman could be in danger of a stoke or sterilization and if it wasn't a question that she would 'die' the abortion would never be covered. Also Stupak is the first time citizens, who will be under a mandate to purchase insurance ,will be banned from purchasing a rider covering abortions if they receive any subsidies. So even if you get a tax rebate you will not be able to buy a private rider to cover the abortion not covered by your exchange insurance . It is a travesty.

[noamnety]

7. the scotus guarantees that within the first trimester

a woman is legally entitled to an abortion AND the right to privacy - in other words, she's entitled to not have to reveal whether or not she was raped, or whether it was the result of incest.

The Hyde Amendment wasn't consistent with the scotus ruling, as it required women to give up that constitutional right in order to get public funds to pay for an abortion. People (including rape victims entitled to medicaid-funded abortions) who insist on retaining their right to privacy have to sacrifice benefits they are legally entitled to.

This amendment goes further, requiring them in many cases to give up that right to get private insurance coverage under the main plan.

Imagine if we had a guaranteed right to freedom of religion ... but only Southern Baptists could get food stamps using federal funds.

[saracat]

9. Great answer!

[FLDCVADem]

11. The problem with your argument

is that Roe v. Wade says we have a right to abortion - it doesn't say we have a right to have it for free.

[noamnety]

18. It says the state must not intrude on the privacy rights

That the state does NOT have a compelling need to know or judge the woman's reasons.

The Hyde and Stupid Amendments require the state to find out the woman's reasons in order to determine eligibility for benefits.
-----------------

We don't have a constitutional right to food stamps. We do, however, have freedom of religion. The state is not allowed to use a religion test to determine eligibility for those benefits.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. I will refer you to my other post, explaining that you rights are often paid for by the government

it is in response to your other post... the one where you think the answer is "Easy"

[Motown_Johnny]

12. so why can't we challenge this as being unconstitutional, including the Hyde Amendment

and I also agree... great answer.

thanks

[FLDCVADem]

14. Easy

Because there is not Constitutional right to an abortion paid for by the government or someone else.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I don't see where the funding comes into play.. Your rights are your rights and not subject to your

income level, or at least they shouldn't be. Perhaps you are thinking of a privilege.


You have a right to vote, even if you don't make any money and don't pay taxes to help pay for your polling place or your ballot. Other people pay for you to vote and you still get to do it.

You have a right to due process even if you can't afford a lawyer.. or have never paid taxes in the state where you are on trial. Other people pay for your lawyer and judge and jury and the building you are in etc etc etc.

You have an great many rights to things that are paid for by the government or someone else and your rights can't be denied because of your economic status. That is what makes it a right, not a privilege.


Driving is a privilege, you have no right to a government paid for license or vehicle. I could come up with other examples but you would have to be a moron to need them.

[FLDCVADem]

38. Women have the right to have an abortion

if they have a way to pay for it or if they can get someone else to pay for it. We have no right to a free abortion, that's ludicrous.

[noamnety]

60. That's our entire current system of health care.

The reason we're reforming the system is that people believe they DO have a right to health care - not just a right to health care if they can afford it.

If you believe health care is only a right for those with money, you should be a libertarian or republican.

[johnaries]

49. So, is it possible that this amendment could be ruled unConstitutional?

And if so, wouldn't the entire law then be ruled unConstitutional?

[johnaries]

51. Does this apply to the Stupak amendment as well as the Hyde?

Seriously, if we can prove the Stupak Amendment is unConstitutional, wouldn't that be the best way to strip it out of the bill?

[niyad]

54. have you read the 37 questions the OK legislature has decided any woman seeking an

abortion in OK MUST answer--with the information to be put online? that particular crap piece of legislation is on hold right now, but we don't know for how long?

read it if you haven't already--it is appalling:

http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf

[sandnsea]

26. Some do, some don't

This question was asked yesterday and the details were that 47% of covered people have abortion coverage, while 83% of insurance companies have an abortion plan available.

Poor women on Medicaid or disabled women on Medicare do not have coverage, so the idea that this is about poor women is ridiculous.

[noamnety]

58. Correction.

Some women on Medicaid have abortion coverage, some do not. It varies by state.

[sandnsea]

79. For health only

No state Medicaid offers abortions due to choice alone. There is always some aspect of health involved, some states broaden that definition more than others.

[Sparkly]

39. First, it does NOT make an exception for the health of the woman.

Only if the pregnancy would kill her.

Second, yes many policies do currently cover legal abortion procedures.

[dflprincess]

42. Even though abortion may be considered an "elective" procedure

it is cheaper for an insurance company to cover it than it is to pay for a full term pregnancy (even one that goes smoothly) and then there's all the cost of all that well baby care they might have to pay for.

No doubt that has something to do with their reasoning for covering it as it is not uncommon for the insurance companies to have to be forced to cover conditions relating to women's health with legislative mandates.

[johnaries]

52. Thank you. Your post makes the most "sense" - as twisted as it is

it is "business sense".

I'm still hoping some lawyer somewhere will decide that the Stupak amendment is unConstitutional and convince Congress to strip it out.

[ieoeja]

75. Abortion is just as elective as pre-natal and maternity care.

If a pregant woman chooses to carry the child to term, should pre-natal and maternity care not be covered because she elected that choice over abortion?

[ljm2002]

76. It does not make an exception for the "health of the mother"...

...it specifically says that a doctor must certify that a continuation of the pregnancy will likely cause the death of the mother.

So much for anencephaly -- that women better give birth to that brainless baby. So much for severe deformities, or hydrocephalus, or a history of severe post partum depression or even psychosis (Andrea Yates, anyone? not that she requested an abortion, don't get me wrong -- but with her history, a physician could certainly have made the argument that she should have aborted that last baby early on -- but that argument would not be accepted under this amendment, since it would not have killed her to give birth).

Granted this language has to do with abortion coverage in insurance policies, and still allows women the "right" to have these procedures. Just not the right to have them covered under their insurance plans.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. It doesn't make exceptions for health of the mother or fetal deformities

Danger to the life of the mother and rape or incest only.

[niyad]

82. kick