Hot Topic (9/17): Should federal funds pay for abortions?
Abortion And The Baucus Health Reform Plan
Posted by Michael Scherer
Like illegal immigration, the issue of abortion in health reform has been a hotly contested one. The Baucus proposal released Wednesday does mark a departure from the House Democratic bill in one key area, while remaining vague about other areas of concern for the pro-life and pro-choice communities.
The biggest difference is the fact that Baucus does not propose a public health option, which under the House Democratic bill would have covered abortion services beyond instances involving rape, incest or the life of the mother. This was, for groups like the National Right To Life Committee, the most objectionable part of the House effort.
In other areas, Baucus sides with House Democrats in trying to find a way for the federal government to help subsidize private health insurance without disrupting the industry's current approach to abortion coverage. Under the Baucus plan, like the House plan, certain individuals would get government subsidies to help buy private insurance in a publicly-established exchanges. There would be a guaranteed choice in each health insurance exchange between at least one plan that does not offer abortion services beyond rape, incest and the life of the mother, and at least one plan that does, allowing consumers to choose their preference. Those private plans that do offer the services would have to segregate funds internally, so that only private dues, and not federal subsidies, pay for actual abortion services.
The Baucus plan also authorizes federal loans and grants to help create new state-level Co-Ops, which will compete with private insurance companies as private non-profit companies. As far as I can tell, the Baucus document does not explicitly authorize or bar the Co-Ops from providing abortion services. Under the Baucus plan, these new insurance plans would be "member run." "Governance of the organization must be subject to a majority vote of its members (i.e. beneficiaries)," the plan reads. Presumably, this would allow for each Co-Op to make its own decision about what abortion services to cover, but this is not explicit in the document.
One reproductive rights lobbyist I spoke with says Republicans are expected to offer two amendments to the Baucus plan in committee over the coming days. The first amendment concerns the "essential community provider" provision, which was included in the House bill, requiring health insurance companies to contract with a number of different private clinics, including family planning entities like Planned Parenthood, for certain non-abortion services. Republicans are expected to attempt an amendment that would remove this requirement.
The second amendment is expected to try to ban the federal government from subsidizing any insurance company that offers abortion services beyond rape, incest or the life of the mother. If passed, this amendment would effectively mandate that no private insurance companies that receive federal subsidies be allowed to offer most abortion services, and thereby deny the option of abortion coverage for those low-income Americans who would become insured as a result of the bill.
Under the current private health care system, a significant share of private health plans--numbers range from 46 percent to 87 percent, depending on the survey--offer abortion services.
* * *
Do you think that private insurance companies who receive federal subsidies should be allowed to offer abortion services?
Should abortion services be offered by insurance companies, including Medicaid and other federal programs?
I can't imagine why the Government shouldn't pay for abortions. After all, for the lower income people, the Government ends up paying for the child for years after the birth.
Quoting f-dill:
I can't imagine why the Government shouldn't pay for abortions. After all, for the lower income people, the Government ends up paying for the child for years after the birth.
Not always true. We a very low income. DH is the only one that works. The government doesn't give us a thing other than health insurance. I believe family should be there for someone in need. At least thats how my family is and how I am going to raise our son. He has never been without thanks to my mom and aunt. We have been living with my parents for the last 3 1/2 years so we aren't homless. We don't want a dime from the state. I know many more people who are just like this.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I am PRO-BORN.
I am for taking care of those chilren who are already here. Do I think abortions should be paid for with public funds? No- not unless the mother's life is in danger or there is proof of rape or incest. If you want an abortion, you should have to pay for it. If you can't afford it to get one, then give it up for adoption.
Abortion is not black and white. There are many factors that lead to a woman's decision to have one- addiction, mental illness, abuse, loss of employment and homelessness to name a few. Until GOOD programs are in place to deal with these issues, abortion will never go away.
I'm not trying to bash any specific person here, but I feel our tax dollars should NOT being paying for abortions in most cases. There are plenty of prgrams in place that allow for birth control, including the Plan B, before it is to the point of abortion. The cost of an abortion should not be incurred by the federal government and in extension the public UNLESS there is a medical neccessity including but not limited to a discovery of incest (which in this day in age with split families and sperm donations/egg donations I'm sure will increase) or rape. However with rape, I feel the women should have to file a report before we take on that cost. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic with rape victims, I am one myself, and 12 years later I wish I would have been strong enough to go forward and press charges. I just feel this would make a woman really evaluate what happened and take steps to noy only remove the scum from the street but claim back some of what was taken from her.
oh hell if the government can fund the death penalty then they can fund medical abortions. stop favoring over which death is justifiable. Murder is murder no matter how you turn it.
Its ok to send our troops with our country's money to other country's and kill innocent men, women and children, its ok to kill a person on death row who is innocent, but oh my no no no lets not pay for a abortion that would just be horribly sinful. I swear this country is so out of wack. If we stop paying for the death penalty and we stop funding a war that has no purpose anymore then I will understand not funding abortions. Until then I just cant wrap my mind around the fact that all of a sudden the government gained a conscious.
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- Cafe GroupAdmin
on Sep. 17, 2009 at 1:43 AM