Comments on: Women Who Would Have Medicaid-Funded Abortions Instead Often Give Birth http://thecurvature.com/2009/07/14/women-who-would-have-medicaid-funded-abortions-instead-often-give-birth/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:09:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Yolanda C. http://thecurvature.com/2009/07/14/women-who-would-have-medicaid-funded-abortions-instead-often-give-birth/#comment-13608 Yolanda C. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:11:40 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=5947#comment-13608 <blockquote>And I’d like to add, having to raise an unwanted child keeps these women (and their children) in poverty and thus dependent on Medicaid…. just despicable.</blockquote> Ain't this the truth! And while these mothers and kids are struggling to eat and stay clothed the same anti-choice politicians turn around and demonize mothers for being poor, brown, and needing economic help. Misogynist hypocrisy knows no bounds.

And I’d like to add, having to raise an unwanted child keeps these women (and their children) in poverty and thus dependent on Medicaid…. just despicable.

Ain’t this the truth! And while these mothers and kids are struggling to eat and stay clothed the same anti-choice politicians turn around and demonize mothers for being poor, brown, and needing economic help. Misogynist hypocrisy knows no bounds.

]]> By: Ravenna http://thecurvature.com/2009/07/14/women-who-would-have-medicaid-funded-abortions-instead-often-give-birth/#comment-13371 Ravenna Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:17:42 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=5947#comment-13371 This is despicable, as is reducing a person to his or her $$$ value. But even from a pure-economic standpoint the insurance industry cannot justify this particular decision: as my sister the doctor pointed out to me, over my shoulder, it is far more expensive to have a child than to have an abortion. And I'd like to add, having to raise an unwanted child keeps these women (and their children) in poverty and thus dependent on Medicaid.... just despicable. This is despicable, as is reducing a person to his or her $$$ value. But even from a pure-economic standpoint the insurance industry cannot justify this particular decision: as my sister the doctor pointed out to me, over my shoulder, it is far more expensive to have a child than to have an abortion. And I’d like to add, having to raise an unwanted child keeps these women (and their children) in poverty and thus dependent on Medicaid…. just despicable.

]]> By: 2 left thumbs http://thecurvature.com/2009/07/14/women-who-would-have-medicaid-funded-abortions-instead-often-give-birth/#comment-13102 2 left thumbs Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:15:18 +0000 http://thecurvature.com/?p=5947#comment-13102 <I>Currently, only 17 states fund all or most medically necessary abortions. The rest (with the exception of South Dakota, which is in breach of federal law), only cover abortions in the case of rape/incest or life endangerment. So, as the ACLU blog astutely notes, the women mentioned above who would have had Medicaid funded abortions given the option but instead gave birth also includes women with health-threatening conditions (such as cancer or heart disease, to name only two of many) that pregnancy poses an increased risk to.</i> Actually, it's far worse than this. Although mandated by their own state supreme courts to cover abortion, Illinois and Maryland do not -- which means that Medicaid coverage is only really available in 15 states (and, maybe, eventually DC!). In the other 35 states, Medicaid, despite federal law, just doesn't cover abortion even in cases of rape or incest or life endangerment. No one is enforcing these rules, and doctors won't risk taking Medicaid for abortions in these circumstances, because they're likely not going to get reimbursed enough, if at all. Every year, more than 100,000 women need money for their abortions. Putting abortion funding into health care reform might be our only hope at getting women what they need. Currently, only 17 states fund all or most medically necessary abortions. The rest (with the exception of South Dakota, which is in breach of federal law), only cover abortions in the case of rape/incest or life endangerment. So, as the ACLU blog astutely notes, the women mentioned above who would have had Medicaid funded abortions given the option but instead gave birth also includes women with health-threatening conditions (such as cancer or heart disease, to name only two of many) that pregnancy poses an increased risk to.

Actually, it’s far worse than this. Although mandated by their own state supreme courts to cover abortion, Illinois and Maryland do not — which means that Medicaid coverage is only really available in 15 states (and, maybe, eventually DC!).

In the other 35 states, Medicaid, despite federal law, just doesn’t cover abortion even in cases of rape or incest or life endangerment. No one is enforcing these rules, and doctors won’t risk taking Medicaid for abortions in these circumstances, because they’re likely not going to get reimbursed enough, if at all. Every year, more than 100,000 women need money for their abortions. Putting abortion funding into health care reform might be our only hope at getting women what they need.

]]>