The federal government should not subsidize abortion
I’m a little confused by the reactions from the left to the abortion compromise which pushed the House healthcare bill over the final hurdles, and effectively ensured that no federal dollars would go toward the public option or to insurance plans on the exchanges that cover abortion.
- For one thing, few women actually use insurance to pay for abortions. According to the New York Times, only 13% of abortions are billed to insurers. The rest are paid for out-of-pocket.
- Medicaid only covers abortion when there is a life-threatening risk to the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The same would be true of the public option or subsidized plans on the exchange under the House compromise. This has not prevented poor people from receiving abortions, or turned abortion into a purely class affair as many on the left seem to be arguing. People buying insurance on the exchanges will be more well-to-do than Medicaid recipients in any case.
- Throughout Europe, abortions are almost entirely limited to the first three months of pregnancy, and many countries with government-subsidized healthcare do not subsidize abortion (though some do.) Even with harsher abortion limitations than in the United States, it would be hard to deny that women have reproductive choice in Europe.
- I am against creating a black market for abortions – abortion rates are often highest in countries with the most restrictive abortion laws – but I don’t believe this is what the Stupak amendment does, anymore than I think Medicaid has created a black market for abortion.
- People receiving federal subsidies would still be allowed to purchase separate insurance to cover abortion if they chose to – this reform does not in any way diminish peoples’ ability to choose to have an abortion or to purchase private insurance that covers abortion.
- A first-trimester abortion costs $350 – $900 according to Planned Parenthood – hardly enough to break the bank, especially if you’re receiving federal subsidies to purchase insurance or are on Medicaid. In this sense, the bill actually does increase the ability of the poor or nearly poor to afford abortions. It just does so indirectly.
- Indeed, abortion is often cheaper than carrying a pregnancy to term, and is certainly less expensive than having kids. The overall economic realities of child-rearing and child-bearing need to be looked at in this debate, not just the question of abortion vs. no abortion.
It seems to me that pro-choice has taken on an altogether new meaning to the pro-choice left (and yes, I prefer the terms pro-life and pro-choice over the flame-baiting “anti-choice” or “pro-death” terminology). No longer is choice good enough in and of itself, now choice plus government assistance is required to keep everything fair. To suggest that somehow not subsidizing abortion in the exchanges or public option will lead to black-market abortions is preposterous. There is no data anywhere to suggest that this will be the case. The Medicaid model should be proof enough of that.
All that being said, providing cheaper access to healthcare – especially pre and post-natal healthcare, could be a huge boon for the pro-life cause. Over 60% of all abortions performed are driven by economic reasons. Give people more of a chance in this world – with affordable healthcare being a good start – and you’re going to dramatically effect the number one reason women choose to terminate a pregnancy, and reduce the abortion rate accordingly. It’s quite possible that universal healthcare will go further toward reducing abortion rates in the United States than overturning Roe v. Wade.
Update.
Ezra Klein makes a good point:
Stupak’s amendment stated that the public option cannot provide abortion coverage, and that no insurer participating on the exchange can provide abortion coverage to anyone receiving subsidies. But as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak’s amendment. It’s the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.
Just one more reason to end the unnatural marriage of employment and health insurance if you ask me.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tweets Tube, E.D. Kain. E.D. Kain said: The federal government should not subsidize abortion @trueslant http://tinyurl.com/yb8bsyo [...]
“It’s quite possible that universal healthcare will go further toward reducing abortion rates in the United States than overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Don’t say that, E.D. It undermines my precious culture war metanarrative. Not nice.
I’m sorry, Kyle. I know those metanarratives are hard to come by and it sucks when cracks form!
In all seriousness, though, this is something Christians should be thinking long and hard about – especially when they get mixed up in these tea parties and all this socialism nonsense. We have a real chance to reduce abortion rates by making the world a little bit easier for the lower middle class and working poor. That’s good for everyone involved, especially the unborn.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree. And while I support making abortion illegal, I know that doing so doesn’t solve the problem and may not prove very effective. For one thing, no legal protections for the unborn will live for long without the popular consensus to support them, and that consensus isn’t being built by the demonization of those who advocate for abortion rights.
Healthcare reform offers both sides an opportunity to work for life, which is something both sides care about (gasp!), even if they disagree about when life should be given legal protection. Pro-lifers really ought to make fundamentally improving our healthcare system a top priority. I don’t mind if we pro-lifers disagree on the best means of improvement, but goodness, let’s get serious about meeting this social obligation. Enough with the nonsense.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] my True/Slant digs I talk about abortion and federal subsidies, the affable yet befuddled Michael Steele, abortion again, and Christianity & healthcare reform [...]
While Rep. Cooper’s statement is true, it does kind of beg the point.
My initial reaction to the amendment was ’so what’s the big deal’? But I did a little research and discovered that, currently, 49% of all health insurance policies do cover elective abortion.
As few -if any- insurance companies will choose to by-pass the exchange (why would they?), that means that they will have to drop elective abortion from their policy offerings. They will be permitted to offer a ryder to cover the possibility, but that will be at an additional cost to the consumer.
The result is (a) there will be dramatically less insurance policies available (if any) that cover the procedure and (b) lower-income people will have a much harder time buying a ryder, denying this coverage to a specific class.
The original negotiated language did a pretty decent job of maintaining the status-quo prohibiting federal dollars in abortion. The Stupak Amendment really did move it in a very different direction.
I should say that I am not an ‘avid’ pro-choicer. Because there is so much we don;t know, I end up coming down on the side of a woman’s choice to make the decision. Still, that decision might be very different to the decision I would likely make.
That said, I do think the Stupak Amendment turned the health care reform bill into an abortion bill and that is not what should be happening here.
A few things:
First of all, most people will still (unfortunately) receive insurance from their employers. Some employers will offer insurance that covers abortion, others will not. And, as usual, employees will have no choice but to accept whatever they get from their employer.
Second, this only governs the exchanges and there only those who receive subsidies. There is no reason to think that in the rest of the insurance market providers will suddenly start dropping coverage of abortion. Those who receive subsidies will have more money to pay for either out-of-pocket abortions or supplemental insurance than they would have previously to this healthcare bill, so I have a really hard seeing this as a limitation of choice.
Third, that 49% number you threw out is in dispute. Other studies have shown more like 87% of private insurance plans cover abortion. I think not enough research has been done in that field.
Fourth, could you go into more depth on how the original bill maintained the status quo and exactly how you see the Stupak amendment changing that?
In response to another comment. See in context »I disagree.
While the house bill does not permit people covered by employer insurance to leave their coverage in favor of shopping on the health exchange, once the health exchange comes into existence in 2013, and during a three year ‘phase in’ period (see section 302 of the House bill), most companies will be purchasing their company policies on the federal health exchange. While existing programs will be grandfathered in as qualified programs, allowing policies currently in existence to remain in existence, it is unclear whether or not they will be able to continue their abortion coverage. And even if they do, it is only a matter of time until this is phased out as more companies go to the exchange where they will, presumably, be able to make better choices for their companies. As this happens, elective abortion will begin to disappear from these policies.
Your point suggesting that over 80% of current policies offers elective abortion kind of furthers my point. Over time, these policies are going to disappear and companies move into the exchange.
With respect to the difference in language between the original house bill and the one passed with the Stupak amendment, under the bill passed, the public option is barred from overing abortion coverage (except for rape and threat to the mother’s life). In the original bill, abortion could be included in the public option if the Sec. of HHW determined that it should be. Further, any private insurance company selling policies on the exchange that accept federally subsidized policyholders are not permitted to sell abortion coverage. In the original bill, the federal subsidies could not be used to pay for abortion coverage, but the purchaser could get the coverage if they paid for it with their own money. As the government subsidies are gong to be paid directly to the insurance companies by the exchange, this was a manageable way to go, ie. the government could control the requirement that people pay for abortion options in their policy with their own money.
In response to another comment. See in context »E.D. – Once again, good piece.
What baffles me about the entire debate is when did we decide, as a nation, that congress (or anyone else for that matter) has the right to tell a woman what she can/can’t do with her body.
To me, it the whole issue still boils down to that one point.
Hell, if i tried to tell either one of my sisters what they could or couldn’t do, they’d slap me upside my head and laugh all the way out the door.
And to make it a focal point of a national health care debate, when people are dying every day, is just even more… amazing.
But this really isn’t about telling people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It’s about how we assist people financially to do those things. This could just as well be about paying for acupuncture – it’s not about whether people have a right to receive acupuncture, it’s whether our tax dollars should help pay for it or not that matters.
In response to another comment. See in context »To be fair, there is pretty big difference between the choice to get an abortion and acupuncture. For many low income Americans, the ability to pay could be a deciding factor. We already have laws that prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion and that’s fine. The original language in the bill met that test. The Stupak language took it farther than was necessary. Look how it has turned a health care debate into an abortion debate. Where is the good in that? I don’t think that those in support of Stupak even realized they were taking it this far. As a result, I think the final language will be designed to maintain the status quo and this will all be a large tempest in an important tea pot.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s true – they are very different. I still disagree that this makes it harder for women to fund an abortion. The exchanges will cover mostly people previously uninsured to begin with. It will subsidize their cost for healthcare putting more money indirectly in their pockets. That will give them more money to pay for an abortion if it comes down to it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well OK, can’t resist. I find it interesting that all you guys are… well…. guys. Once young, desperate and poor I had a back-alley abortion because there was no other legal choice (and try telling a 20-year-old just to take a year out of her life and quietly hide out and have the baby…) Although I did live, as countless others did not in those grim days, this colors my thinking. All church/state issues aside (I am a pro-choice Presbyterian), I will continue to oppose these subtle and not-so-subtle actions condemning more desperate, young, poor women to desperate, unsafe actions.
Fran,
I’m very sorry to hear about that – I know that must have been a very difficult decision for you. One reason I prefer combating abortion through cultural and economic means rather than via the legal system is that I know banning abortion would not end it but rather lead to back-alley abortions and other dangerous situations for desperate women.
However, I don’t see the Stupak amendment as limiting choice any more than the current system does. Right now if a woman has no insurance she has to buy very expensive insurance on the private market. Under the House bill she’ll be able to purchase much cheaper insurance, leaving more money in her pocket at the end of the day to do with as she will. This includes spending that money to buy supplemental insurance or, if it comes to that, paying for an abortion out of pocket. Having cheaper private insurance certainly doesn’t create a more difficult financial situation than the current system.
In response to another comment. See in context »Fran is right that it is a bunch of us ‘guys’ talking about this here. But where are the women commenters???? They should be leading the discussion but they have to show up to do so!