One of the most convincing arguments for passing the public health plan without abortion coverage is that very few women use insurance to cover abortions to begin with. But if you've heard the statistic that only 13 percent of abortions are billed to insurers, that's not exactly the whole truth.
The Guttmacher Institute, the pro-choice organization responsible for the study the stats were pulled from, contests the 13 percent statistic has been taken out of context and widely used through the media — like, say, in the Wall Street Journal article we linked to yesterday.
While the study does say only 13 percent of first-term abortions are billed to private insurers, that figure is skewed because it looked at all women who had abortions and not just those who had insurance. You can't bill an insurer if you don't have one! The study also did not include women who paid for abortions up front and were later reimbursed.
So what's a realistic number? Nobody really knows because of the private nature of abortions. Another Guttmacher study found that 87 percent of employer-based insurance plans covered abortions, but a Kaiser Family Foundation study found that only 46 percent of covered workers reported coverage. Why such a big a difference? Many women just don't know their insurance covers abortion.
As Congress continues to debate the public health plan, do you care if it includes abortion coverage? Can we miss something so many women never knew they had?
Source: Flickr User amypritchizzle
Hugo Boss
I care! If I ended up on the public health care plan, I would want it to cover abortions the same way it does any other medical procedure.
but what really gets me is that the stupak amendment says that women on the public plan wouldn't be able to use PRIVATE insurance companies to pay for their abortions! in the senate version, maybe government plans won't cover it, but at least your own premiums/private insurer funds can cover it. That seems so obvious that I can't believe we're debating it!
so yeah, I think we can miss something that SOME women didn't know they had... and maybe it's a good thing we're talking about it so more women realize that they might be covered in their current plan.
1I care! My first objection is that it is fundamentally unconstitutional to not cover a medical procedure that applies only to women. What male equivalent could be restricted?
Those women who were unaware of their coverage were hopefully never in a position where they had to make that decision. Ideally no one would ever have to make such a difficult decision but we don't live in an ideal world and women don't need financial worries on top of the emotional trauma of deciding to get an abortion.
2Umm, what does this have to do with the constitution?
3Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.