Life-saving, life-changing, affordable health care
posted by Silvana
Last week, Barack Obama famously said about the fight over universal health care currently gripping both houses of congress and most of the country: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill."
What does that mean? Abortion is health care. The health care bill, providing as it does for a "public option," which will be run by the government, necessarily describes what will and will not be covered by said public option. So, naturally, the bill couldn't exactly remain silent on the issue of abortion, one of the mostly hotly contested and unnecessarily controversial medical procedures.
What President Obama apparently meant is that he wanted the bill not to change the status quo on abortion. That, it seems, is the notion that "federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions." Which, of course, isn't true. Medicaid does pay for abortions. In Illinois, physicians just need to fill out form HFS2390, which lays out the acceptable reasons for requesting that Medicaid funds pay for an abortion:
No, he means "elective" abortion. Which is a term that doesn't make sense. Plenty of the circumstances that make an abortion procedure Medicaid-eligible are "elective." I am certain there are many victims of rape and incest that "elect" to carry the fetus to term and give birth. So what President Obama, and the hundreds of elected Democrats and Republicans who agree with him mean when they say "abortion" is "elective abortion" which is really "abortions that do not make the women who receive them into bad dirty sluts."
It's completely arbitrary. Funding abortions of pregnancies that are a result of rape, and not funding abortions that are a result of consensual sex is apparently the bizarre status quo that we want to conserve.
Let's step back a bit. Why are we having this fight over health care in the first place? This knock down, drag-out fight over what we believe our government's responsibility it to ensure that its citizens are taken care of? Well, it's mostly because we are an extremely rich, industrialized country that has millions of people who are without insurance and thus, without health care. It's also because our health care system is incredibly expensive, and consumes a huge chunk of our GDP every year. So, we're trying to increase coverage, and control costs. As Matthew Yglesias pointed out today, in the grand scheme of things, abortions are actually pretty cheap. He quotes a figure of $200, but in my experience it's really more like $400. But two hundred or four, it's a remarkably cheap procedure compared to almost anything else. Routine blood work runs into the several hundred dollars. I had a mole biopsied about a year ago and I was shocked at the cost. Even a month's worth of prescription anti-depressants, if they're not generic, can run you over a hundred dollars.
Not only are abortions incredibly necessary for millions of women, they also don't cost that much. Which means that anyone who can scrape together the funds for one and can get to a clinic is going to get one if that's what they want to do. The only people who really, desperately need the abortions covered by their health insurance? Poor women.
The day the Stupak amendment was passed, I was somewhat blase about it, because I mistakenly thought that it merely continued the government's long-running ridiculous refusal to pay for abortions that it deemed to be in its fake "elective" category. Until I realized a few days ago, that it will jeopardize abortion coverage for private insurance as well. Many of which cover abortions as a matter of routine in all kinds of health care plans.
For instance, the insurance plan purchased from Cigna by the Republican National Committee, for its employees, covers "elective" abortion.
And huh, look at that, the insurance plan purchased from by Principal by Focus on the Family doesn't cover "elective" abortion, but Principal provides other policies that do!
Which is basically the same thing that all these Congressmen and women are up in arms about.
Jill Filipovic had a hilarious post up at Feministe today outlining all the things to which she morally objects and demands that she not be required to subsidize indirectly by paying taxes to the federal government. She's being silly, but the point is a serious one that I was making in conversation with my boyfriend last night: in general, we do not allow people to opt out of paying taxes just because those taxes pay for things that are against their beliefs, religious or otherwise. There are all kinds of wacky beliefs out there. And while the first amendment protects your ability to practice your religion as you see fit, it generally doesn't get you out of complying with the law, especially laws like paying taxes (the whole Wisconsin v. Yoder thing is a notable exception).
And yet, all this time, American taxpayer dollars have been paying for abortions all along. Just not the ones for the sluts.
What does that mean? Abortion is health care. The health care bill, providing as it does for a "public option," which will be run by the government, necessarily describes what will and will not be covered by said public option. So, naturally, the bill couldn't exactly remain silent on the issue of abortion, one of the mostly hotly contested and unnecessarily controversial medical procedures.
What President Obama apparently meant is that he wanted the bill not to change the status quo on abortion. That, it seems, is the notion that "federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions." Which, of course, isn't true. Medicaid does pay for abortions. In Illinois, physicians just need to fill out form HFS2390, which lays out the acceptable reasons for requesting that Medicaid funds pay for an abortion:
No, he means "elective" abortion. Which is a term that doesn't make sense. Plenty of the circumstances that make an abortion procedure Medicaid-eligible are "elective." I am certain there are many victims of rape and incest that "elect" to carry the fetus to term and give birth. So what President Obama, and the hundreds of elected Democrats and Republicans who agree with him mean when they say "abortion" is "elective abortion" which is really "abortions that do not make the women who receive them into bad dirty sluts."
It's completely arbitrary. Funding abortions of pregnancies that are a result of rape, and not funding abortions that are a result of consensual sex is apparently the bizarre status quo that we want to conserve.
Let's step back a bit. Why are we having this fight over health care in the first place? This knock down, drag-out fight over what we believe our government's responsibility it to ensure that its citizens are taken care of? Well, it's mostly because we are an extremely rich, industrialized country that has millions of people who are without insurance and thus, without health care. It's also because our health care system is incredibly expensive, and consumes a huge chunk of our GDP every year. So, we're trying to increase coverage, and control costs. As Matthew Yglesias pointed out today, in the grand scheme of things, abortions are actually pretty cheap. He quotes a figure of $200, but in my experience it's really more like $400. But two hundred or four, it's a remarkably cheap procedure compared to almost anything else. Routine blood work runs into the several hundred dollars. I had a mole biopsied about a year ago and I was shocked at the cost. Even a month's worth of prescription anti-depressants, if they're not generic, can run you over a hundred dollars.
Not only are abortions incredibly necessary for millions of women, they also don't cost that much. Which means that anyone who can scrape together the funds for one and can get to a clinic is going to get one if that's what they want to do. The only people who really, desperately need the abortions covered by their health insurance? Poor women.
The day the Stupak amendment was passed, I was somewhat blase about it, because I mistakenly thought that it merely continued the government's long-running ridiculous refusal to pay for abortions that it deemed to be in its fake "elective" category. Until I realized a few days ago, that it will jeopardize abortion coverage for private insurance as well. Many of which cover abortions as a matter of routine in all kinds of health care plans.
For instance, the insurance plan purchased from Cigna by the Republican National Committee, for its employees, covers "elective" abortion.
And huh, look at that, the insurance plan purchased from by Principal by Focus on the Family doesn't cover "elective" abortion, but Principal provides other policies that do!
Which is basically the same thing that all these Congressmen and women are up in arms about.
Jill Filipovic had a hilarious post up at Feministe today outlining all the things to which she morally objects and demands that she not be required to subsidize indirectly by paying taxes to the federal government. She's being silly, but the point is a serious one that I was making in conversation with my boyfriend last night: in general, we do not allow people to opt out of paying taxes just because those taxes pay for things that are against their beliefs, religious or otherwise. There are all kinds of wacky beliefs out there. And while the first amendment protects your ability to practice your religion as you see fit, it generally doesn't get you out of complying with the law, especially laws like paying taxes (the whole Wisconsin v. Yoder thing is a notable exception).
And yet, all this time, American taxpayer dollars have been paying for abortions all along. Just not the ones for the sluts.
Labels: abortion, m. leblanc
Posted at 6:27 PM
|
