Universal Health Care Reduces Abortions

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Universal Health Care Reduces Abortions
76
Tue, 03-16-2010 - 2:08pm

"Countless arguments have been advanced for and against the pending bills to increase health-care coverage. Both sides have valid concerns, which makes the battle tight. But one prominent argument is illogical. The contention that opponents of abortion should oppose the current proposals to expand coverage simply doesn't make sense.

How health care discourages abortion
Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-16-2010 - 6:15pm

EXACTLY!!! When you increase access to birth control, provide good healthcare, women are less likely to have unwanted pregnancies.

We want abortion to be legal, safe, and rare.

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Wed, 03-17-2010 - 12:34am
I think on top of that, people who get pregnant and don't have to worry about where or how they will afford prenatal/infant health care, would be more likely to continue the pregnancy. My four days in the hospital to have E cost our insurance company $36,000.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 8:52am

An example of this in the news:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/703199918#ashford-sees-abortion-epidemic

" She said she can count on one hand the number of abortions she has been aware of over the past decade, adding that one of the clinic's translators had never heard the Spanish word for “abortion” until the past two weeks.

“I just really underestimated how the loss of prenatal care would push so many people into doing something that ordinarily they would never, ever consider,” McVea said. “It's a lot of fear. Uncertainty drives a lot of women to choose an abortion.”

"Six low-income women have told a south Omaha health clinic that they will opt for abortions because they cannot afford prenatal services, which are no longer government-funded.

The report from the OneWorld Community Health Centers, coupled with the earlier confirmation of an abortion by a Schuyler, Neb., woman, prompted at least three state senators to say Thursday that the issue has reached a “crisis” level.

They said the Legislature must revisit the controversial issue.

“It's not just a crisis, this is an epidemic of abortion,” said Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford. “This is totally contrary to the values of our state, which are to protect unborn children. The Legislature has to come together on a solution, just like we did on the safe haven crisis. If we don't, these abortions are going to continue.”

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Fri, 03-19-2010 - 3:42pm

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Wed, 03-24-2010 - 6:45pm

<<>

I don't think that statement is entirely true,people don't continue pregnancy for a whole lot more reason than cost alone,maybe in SOME cases but I don't see an increase in women choosing to have babies simply because it has been made easier for them to do it that simplifies a very complicated issue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Thu, 03-25-2010 - 1:45am
Well, yes, when you cite it out of context it would seem oversimplified. I was adding to someone else's claim, not attempting to cancel out everyone else's.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Thu, 03-25-2010 - 6:03am

<>>

It seems oversimplified because it is, I didn't take it out of context you suggested that people might continue pregnancy simply for the fact that they know they will be paid for thus reducing abortion. If not the sole reason at least a considerable factor.

that is not taken out of context that is what you said.

<>

Ok I never suggested that you were.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Thu, 03-25-2010 - 6:49pm

<>

No, I didn't. Nowhere did I state that a woman who was dead-set on having an abortion would change her mind because of UHC. That does not denote "the sole reason," as you imply I was arguing. I *added* my statement, because pregnancy and childbirth are expensive. Mine certainly was very expensive. If I became pregnant, and I had no health insurance, and I was expecting to be forced into a repeat c/s with no money to pay for it, it would take my severe personal stance against abortion to keep me from considering it. I really don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that someone who is expecting to be set back thousands of dollars for prenatal care/childbirth might be more likely to consider abortion than a person who will not be set back those thousands of dollars. Sure, babies are expensive, but I've spent far, far less on my daughter than my insurance company did for her birth.

Considering that 21% of women who have abortions do it because they say they cannot afford the child, thousands of dollars of expense they would/would not incur could, I think, do a lot in affecting their decision-making. Unless you'd like to argue either that pregnancy and childbirth do not cost thousands of dollars in the U.S. or that women who abort based on money are not worried about that expense, it does not make sense to conclude that my claim is absolutely incorrect.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Thu, 03-25-2010 - 8:02pm

<>

Yes you did

<<< Nowhere did I state that a woman who was dead-set on having an abortion would change her mind because of UHC.>>>

I never said that you did.

<<>>

The way you stated it,it did sound like a sole reason and that is your fault.

<<< I *added* my statement, because pregnancy and childbirth are expensive.>>

Nobody has argued that it is not but what procedure that involves hospital stays is not?

<>

Again nobody has argued that point.

<<< If I became pregnant, and I had no health insurance, and I was expecting to be forced into a repeat c/s with no money to pay for it, it would take my severe personal stance against abortion to keep me from considering it.>>>

OK.

<<< I really don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that someone who is expecting to be set back thousands of dollars for prenatal care/childbirth might be more likely to consider abortion than a person who will not be set back those thousands of dollars.>>>

I think that,that is purely speculative on your part and speculation is worth absolutely nothing.If we are simply supposing I would agree that it may have crossed the minds of quite a few women.

<< Sure, babies are expensive, but I've spent far, far less on my daughter than my insurance company did for her birth.>>>

Good for you.

<>

See, that is not the point you seem to suggest that but for the lack of funds that they would have had the child,I'm simply saying that is over simplification of every issue. Sure it's easy to say for the sake of statistics that that percentage of women would choose abortion as an alternative to the expense of raising a child but we surely do not know the WHOLE reason why that 21 % made that decision now do we? If we get down to the brass tax of it all I'm sure cost alone is not the only issue even you yourself have expressed reservation about abortion and as someone who supports choice I think making a statement like that no matter how marginal the number suggests that women make a life altering and serious choice based on something as crass as money. It raises the ugly specter of doubt about the thought that women give to this and buttresses the ignorant idea that is pushed by pro lifers that women make appointments for abortions like they do to have their nails done

<>

I could argue that point wholly and absolutely My argument not being that it does cost thousands of dollars but that it needn't cost thousands of dollars. I will not begrudge you the small idea that the thought has occurred to SOME women and that indeed may be their decision based on money but, I take issue with the percentage of women not being 21% but that number is probably smaller. Only 21% SAID that was the issue but I suspect it was not the sole reason.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Thu, 03-25-2010 - 10:20pm

<>

Usually when someone says "on top of that," they mean in addition to, not in replacement of. See my earlier post about how I never argued my reason was to replace any other argumentation. It certainly would be if I claimed that would be the sole reason.

You are welcome to think that when I say "on top of that" I mean "instead of what you're arguing," that does not make it so. And I cannot control how you interpret what I've written if you overlook parts of my text.

<>

And people might avoid those procedures if they cannot afford them, and they are more likely to have those procedures if they can afford them. This supports my argument.

<>

Are you implying that if I do not have evidential proof of what might happen given certain circumstances, I should not speak? I have a speculation, yes, based on evidence. That does not mean it is "worth absolutely nothing." What part of debate is it for you to determine that parts of my arguments are worth nothing?

<>

Not really. Money is a major concern for a lot of people. $36K is more than I paid for my car, and more than my household income this year. To a woman in more dire straits than me, $36K could be the difference between paid rent and life in a shelter. Certainly I know many people whose lives are much more in the margins even than that. I know people who have been crushed by medical debt, lost their homes over medical debt. Their stories are all over the newspapers and magazines as the government debates how health care reform will play out.

<>

No, but the evidence is there. That was their primary reason. Sure it doesn't address the fact that it may have been an unwanted pregnancy to begin with, maybe they had a nasty breakup, etc. But I think it would be folly to say that I am absolutely incorrect, that there's no chance whatsoever the difference in cost of thousands of dollars might make some women make a different decision.

<>

See my earlier statements re: money. What I see here is not that I'm arguing women get abortions for stupid reasons; rather, I see your implication that inability to afford caring for a child (and pay for prenatal care/childbirth) is not a viable reason to have an abortion.

<>

Only if you think having an abortion because you can't afford to care for a child is a bad thing. I think that, in the absence of universal health care and affordable child care options, it is a very viable reason.

And that's the source of the confusion: you think I'm arguing that women would be callous enough to abort for monetary reasons. And I actually believe that many women are financially pressed that they must abort for monetary reasons. You can call money "crass" and pretend that it isn't significant, but there's no conclusion to make but that it is. Obviously it is, if that's the reason 1 out of 5 who have abortions say they did it. And it would be folly, again, to argue that no major personal decisions in this society are driven at least in part by money.

<>

What's wrong with my example being less significant? It needn't represent every woman in the world. There is a huge difference, after all, between less significant and having no bearing whatsoever. I don't have to make every post on a debate board the absolutely most significant example in every instance. That would be exhausting!




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

Pages