Should Abortions Be Insured, Ctd.

About three months ago, I talked about the abortion debate happening as part of the health reform debate:

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.

According to tonight’s amendment (if it holds through the process) abortion, coverage of which is already prohibited in Medicaid, CHIP, military/veteran care, federal employee insurance, etc. will now be prohibited in the public option and in the plans on the exchange (theoretically just for those using subsidies, but it the insurers won’t offer a subsidy and non-subsidy plan). At this point, this applies to a fairly small number of individuals.

However, nothing about this prevents insurance from existing that would cover abortions or outlaw elective abortion as a medical procedure. People would still be able to add an elective abortion rider to their insurance as they might add supplemental insurance provisions for any number of other things. With more people exiting the ranks of the uninsured (where I should point out, they were not covered for elective abortions), charitable programs that provided health care could shift attention to bolstering groups like Planned Parenthood that can provide affordable abortions.

The fevered pitch of the reaction to the Stupak amendment is a bit shocking if not actually surprising. One Democratic Congresswoman is apparently threatening to vote against it and Planned Parenthood is claiming it is an amendment “that will eliminate choice for millions of women.” This is just factually incorrect. It might make access more difficult than it was for some women, but it doesn’t affect choice. This does have a cost to society, but there are valid principles on both sides, and people value them differently.

I can say for sure that I would vote for health reform with or without the provision. The issue isn’t significant enough either way (the amendment simply extends the status quo) to outweigh the benefit that the bill does. As to the specific amendment, I would have to consider it very deeply before I cast my vote, but for the reasons stating in my past blog, I might very well support it.

With health reform passing the house by such a narrow margin, the provision was clearly necessary, and I am glad that they choose what could pass over some idealized bill that wouldn’t help anyone because it would fail.