Over at TAP, Dana Goldstein looks at the role of the abortion debate as part of the health reform debate. As a bit of history, we see that the federal government does not presently put funds towards abortions:
Almost immediately, opponents of reproductive rights began seeking out ways to limit access to the procedure. One of their major early successes was the Hyde Amendment, which, ever since 1976, has banned Medicaid — the federal health insurance program for poor women and children — from paying for abortions, except in the most extreme cases when a woman’s physical health or life is in danger. Medicaid covers 7 million American women, or 12 percent of women of reproductive age. Federal employees, members of the U.S. military, Peace Corps volunteers, and prisoners are also barred from using their government health coverage to access abortion.
The Democratic pro-choice assumption seems to be that covering abortions through Medicaid and other venues of public insurance would be a positive step or a natural extension of a pro-choice stance. I don’t feel I need to defend my support to the right to seek an abortion, but whether abortion need be a covered health insurance benefit is entirely another thing.
Aside from the presence of medical complications, abortion is an elective procedure. One does not NEED to have an abortion for the sake of their health. It is a matter of major life convenience. If our goal is to establish a minimum, essential level of health care for everyone, it would be hard to argue that abortion should make the short list for covered benefits.
This is not to say that it would be economically beneficial to skip on covering abortions. If the low-income women who would be on public plans or subsidized do not have covered access to abortions, they will likely have more children who will then need public services. Making it easier for these women to have abortions would likely save money over time (and if you trust the finding in Freakonomics, result in a lower crime rate).
This of course is the danger. Funding abortions and noting their effects on lessening the poor (and via correlation, minority) population starts sounding like eugenics real quick, such as this edgy quote from Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg. When it comes down to it, there is a notable difference between allowing abortions and funding them, and I’m not sure it is worth going there. Goldstein makes the point that it isn’t really being considered (it is simply a scare tactic from the right) though she seems like she’d support it if it were being considered. Ultimately, I’d focus on the more essential health needs and let private charity and groups like Planned Parenthood work to increase access to abortions. The government role in abortion should remain protecting the right and safety to perform and receive abortions.
