Universal Health Care Can Reduce Abortion

I think my last comment was removed. But to reiterate: there is no peer-reviewed, published research linking health care to abortion rates in the US. There are multiple peer-reviewed studies linking public funding of abortions to abortion rates, however.

Michael New recently critiqued Reid's column, which you can read here: http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2...

Yes - unfortunately, there are just the raw numbers and percentages that demonstrate that nations with universal health care have demonstrably lower abortion rates than we do. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that women know they and their children will have access to medical care.

Consider the source of the critique.

Considering that, in our nation, federal tax dollars are prohibited from being used to fund abortions, yet our abortion rate is so much higher than nations with universal health care, that must mean that either all women who obtain abortions are paying out of pocket themselves, OR, private insurance corporations fund the bulk of the abortions carried out in the US.

Which is it, I wonder?

Let he/she who is not paying for abortions with their health care premiums cast the first stone.

Actually, taxpayers fund a lot of abortions in the US. California has taxpayer funding of abortions through Medicaid, and they have one of the highest (if not the highest) abortion rates in the US.

The source of the critique is irrelevant--I'm guessing you didn't read it. He present stats which can be debated. Correlation does not equal causation, and there are still no peer-reviewed studies linking health care to abortion rates. If this is such a strong relationship, it should be easy to demonstrate.

Lastly, one of the reasons the abortion rate is high in the US (though comparable to some countries w/ universal health care--see link below) is that our rates of unplanned pregnancy are high. In the US, poor women are actually less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than are middle and upper class women.

Moved to reply to jesse3

There is a problem with your logic, I believe - on one hand you state that medicaid funds abortions in California and California has one of the highest abortion rates in the nation, but then you go on to say:

"In the US, poor women are actually less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than are middle and upper class women."

So, if middle and upper class women (who are not eligible for medicaid) are the ones who have more abortions, who pays for those abortions?

Private corporate health insurance policies, for the most part (and all those who pay premiums into those policies, of course).

So, again, who is paying for most of the abortions in the US? Those with private corporate health insurance!

I never said middle and upper-class women have more abortions. I said they're more likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy. However, poor women are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies, which is why they have more abortions.

Private corporate health insurance is not paying for most of the abortions in the US. I don't know where you're getting that from. Most are paid out of pocket.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the US. Their latest annual report reveals they received 350 million dollars in federal grants and contracts, and the same report records over 300000 abortions. The law prohibits Title X funds from DIRECTLY funding abortions, but not for "family planning." We might remember that a bill to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood was defeated last July, by the very same ones who today are pushing government healthcare. Why would that be, if they are at all truly interested in reducing the number of abortions? I would suggest it is because they have no such interest, and intend to continue this evil under the healthcare plans proposed.

There's so much to address here...

Like perhaps poor women are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies because they do not have same access to education and family planning services that middle class and upper class women do? Universal health care (Medicare for Everyone!), by the way, would address that problem.

I'm "getting that" from the Guttmacher/Kaiser Foundation studies that found that over 80% of employer-based private corporate health insurance policies cover abortions. The link is in another recent healthcare reform/abortion post. Everyone who pays into those policies helps fund those abortions.

That's why I suggested that everyone who is decrying the possible use of federal tax dollars to fund abortions at some vague point in the future (the current health care reform bill does not permit it) get their health insurance policies out and check them to see if they provide abortion services, and see if they might be paying for abortions right now. I notice that, aside from one person who apparently justifies it on the theory that because even though they "choose" to pay for that "optional" coverage now, they can drop it whenever they want (that's mistaken, by the way - they may drop the "optional coverage" for themselves, but are still paying for others to have it), no one has replied...they must all either not have employer-based insurance, or they must all be in the less than 20% that do not cover it?

Another point - you also just said that "most" abortions are paid out of pocket - so all those poor women with unplanned pregnancies cannot be the majority of the ones who are paying for them with medicaid funding.

Which is STILL not using tax dollars, but private funds (including insurance premiums) to contribute to one of the highest abortion rates in the western world.

Planned parenthood does not use federal funds to pay for abortions! "Family planning" is NOT abortion - "family planning" is education, physical exams, counseling, and providing access to birth control.

"Family planning" takes place BEFORE pregnancy occurs.

"Family planning" is clearly described by Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood clearly states that services "other than family planning" require fees and alternate funding.

"Family planning" is yet another term that the right wing is attempting to co-opt and distort.

If you stop funding Planned Parenthood, you stop funding one of the only sources available to poor women to obtain education, medical exams, counseling, and birth control medication - which would INCREASE the rate of abortion.

Again - Planned Parenthood does NOT use tax dollars to fund abortions - they use tax dollars to provide their OTHER services to poor women.

"Family planning" does NOT mean "abortion."

Ending funding to Planned Parenthood would likely result in MORE abortions, not fewer.

It is beyond ludicrous to believe that denying education, medical care, counseling, and birth control services to poor women (or any women, for that matter) will somehow magically result in fewer pregnancies and a lower rate of abortion.

"I'm "getting that" from the Guttmacher/Kaiser Foundation studies that found that over 80% of employer-based private corporate health insurance policies cover abortions. The link is in another recent healthcare reform/abortion post. Everyone who pays into those policies helps fund those abortions. "
--Actually, the Kaiser study found 46% of plans had coverage--and as far as I know they didn't say which of the 46% only pay for abortion for health reasons. Also, you didn't only say that most insurance plans provided abortion coverage. You said "who is paying for most of the abortions in the US? Those with private corporate health insurance!" Most abortions aren't actually paid for through private health insurance.

"Another point - you also just said that "most" abortions are paid out of pocket - so all those poor women with unplanned pregnancies cannot be the majority of the ones who are paying for them with medicaid funding."
--Never said they were. But Medicaid is currently still paying for a large number of abortions for poor women.

For the record, my insurance policy does not cover abortion.

The mafia has legal front businesses as well. I'm saddened that a Christian would defend an organization whose main business is abortion, and kid themselves that they separate the dollars received for "planning" from the dollars received for "doing." Personally, I don't want a dime of my money to help them stay in business. If that's a "right-wing" view, which btw is the usual fall back label, so be it. Where in Scripture are we called to do evil, that good may come?

You are not telling the truth - to put it as kindly as I can. The facts do not support your allegations.

You ought to be able to defend your point without engaging in lies, distortions, and innuendo.

Here's the original link I posted:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/...

It discusses the differences in scope and methodology between the Kaiser and Guttmacher studies, and also the percentage of empoyer-based private corporate health policies that limit their abortion coverage to "rape and incest" - it's a very small number, according to the study. The common terminology is "medically necessary" abortions - the necessity being determined by the woman and her doctor.

Hope that helps...

The issue is not about who funds the abortions (of which there are also many forms - such as medically necessary) - the issue is actually in this discussion:

Who pays for the preventative and or prenatal medical care and the post-natal and child medical care?

Now maybe you can or you can't make a correlation between the UN's stats regarding abortion rates in socialized medical care vs. abortion rates in a country with non-socialized medical care.

I for one agree with the rational - as a woman who is covered by socialized medicine (in Canada - I pay in every 3 months right now as I'm working and not a student), I know that I will always have continuous medical care whether I'm deemed able to pay the premiums or not (based on income) - and same would go for my children. If I a single unwed woman were to get pregnant now medical is one worry I would never have to consider.

The other point is preventing unwanted births prior to conception - medical visits are covered in socialized systems and for those in lower socioeconomic classes, OCP (oral contraceptive pills) and other options are covered. Our medical system has decided it is better to offer free or reduced cost contraceptive options than to rely on abortions for population control.

I know there is a lot of talk about who's pulling the strings on society etc., socialized medicine is by no means perfect, no system is, but I can't see how a system that leaves 45 million without coverage and no clear and unbiased safety net is one that should be supported.

I live in a country with Public Healthcare and a comprehensive Welfare system, I'm not sure where NZ is on abortions. But I do know that with the benefits provided for solo parents here, it is definitely not the end of the world for a lot of women to be pregnant. It is practically impossible to adopt a child here as most women do keep babies. I think that this article makes a good point, but it's ignoring the very comprehensive welfare system that the UK and Canada (and probably the other countries) has.

These facts bear repeating. It might be that if your primary worship is of "capitalism" - which ought to be a tool used for the benefit of all, rather than wielded in support of enhancing the extreme financial positions of the few, by exploiting the many - that you will find yourself de facto arguing for the continuing practice of the moral evil of abortion, simply because you have begun to worship Mammon - and abortion most certainly serves the interests of Mammon.

Fact: Private insurance companies ALL cover abortion.
On the other hand, NONE of them will cover the cost of birth to new applicants, even if many months in the future, because giving birth is considered the result of a "pre-existing illness."

Fact: Private enterprise considers abortion the preferable option over pregnancy and birth, for the bottom-line reasons that are the only interest of private for-profit companies. Abortion is always a cheaper solution for insurance companies than pregnancy and birth.

Fact: Abortion as a "final solution" for pregnancy is very profitable and cheap - it costs an insurer only in three figures or even if drug-induced (which is also covered by private insurance companies) even less. Pregnancy carried to term and beyond can easily cost well into the middle five figures or even higher.

Fact: Pregnancy eats up profits, which is why private insurance rates for women of child-bearing age are so much higher than for that of men. Pregnancy is costly and eats up premium profits, whereas abortion improves profitability.

Fact: Economic conservatives favor abortion and birth control as measures to prevent having to spend tax money on welfare and subsidies for pregnant unwed mothers, lower economic-class women and families.

Fact: The business and financially-elite portions of the conservative movement and the Republican Party actually in practice favor abortion, but seek to still use it to mobilize socially conservative voters at election time.

Fact: a government-administered health care system that prohibits the use of tax money to pay for abortions would actually reduce the large number of abortions currently paid for by private insurance companies, both because abortion would not be funded as it is by private enterprise and because the perverse economic incentive for abortion for both the insurer and the mother and family would be eliminated.

Fact: a large factor in choosing abortion is the heavy economic burden that accrues to the unwed mother, both before the birth, and after should she choose to keep her child with her.

Fact: the United States has the worst abortion rate of western nations, despite having a health care system administered mostly by private insurance companies driven by the pursuit of profit rather than addressing medical necessity - which consequently offers perverse economic incentives for abortion. In contrast, other nations with publicly-administered health care have lower rates of abortion.

These facts are irrefutable and lead inevitably to the conclusion: whatever else it may be, the Mammon argument against universal health care is NOT a pro-life argument for reducing abortions.

If you have private medical insurance, get off it. Your premiums fund abortions.

Paying a few hundred dollars "out of pocket" for an abortion is the time-honored way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies - because the alternative is the extremely heavy financial burden of tens of thousands of dollars "out of pocket."

It is far more likely for the uninsured to be able to afford an abortion instead of pregnancy.

Interestingly, private insurers feel this way, too. They will fund an abortion, but not a pregnancy that is a "pre-existing illness" for the beneficiaries of employer-provided health insurance. As an executive for a medical services company, I've seen it first-hand.

Our companies are about providing the minimum expenditure for the maximum premium we can get. Abortion is a no-brainer profit center for profit-driven companies.

The evasiveness and subject-changing nature - and the phrase

"...stats which can be debated. Correlation does not equal causation, and there are still no peer-reviewed studies..."

reminds me so much of cigarette corporations trying to prove their products couldn't be proven to have had much of anything to do with the unfortunate incidence of lung cancer.

Maybe there should be a "Thankyou For Having an Abortion" version of the funny book and movie by Chris Buckley, "Thankyou For Smoking" ... with Big Insurance substituting for Big Tobacco.

Sorry, NMRod,
I'm not changing the subject. My point speaks directly to the subject. There have been a number of studies examining factors associated with abortion rates. Health care or welfare of any form has not been found to predict abortion rates. Do you care at all about what the research says regarding this subject? The tobacco industry denied research. I'm affirming research.

Here is just one study that was carried out by Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They directly tested whether Medicaid coverage, HMO membership, or AFDC benefits were associated with abortion rates. Guess what they found? Nope.

It's really worth reading: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2905297...

I think it's a stretch to maintain that health care or welfare reform have not been found across the board to predict abortion rates - especially since the study you cited uses data that is 20-30 years old.

You would be better off offering a viable explanation regarding why abortion rates in nations with universal health care are lower than ours - especially since attitudes about abortion are so much more laissez-faire than ours in several of those nations.

If it isn't access to health care and support services, then what IS the reason?

You make a good argument for why a single payer government system that bans funding for abortion would be the appropriate way to go.

Perhaps universal health care would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. But this op-ed doesn't provide proof.

The link provided by Jesse above notes several problems with the author's points. One calls into question Reid's main point - that countries with universal coverage have lower abortion rates. Well, it depends on what abortion statistics you use.

Also, in the U.S. we already have universal coverage for the poor. It's called Medicaid. A baby born to a poor mother will have health care provided by the government. Lack of health care shouldn't contribute to the poor mother's decisions to bring or not to bring a child to term.

"If it isn't access to health care and support services, then what IS the reason?"
--Any number of reasons. Countries are different. Cultures are different. That's why these within-country analyses are much more informative. They're making the argument that expanding insurance coverage in the US will reduce abortion rates, but that is actually a testable hypothesis! How do we test it? See if level of insurance coverage or expanding insurance coverage is related to abortion rates in the US. This has been done, and researchers have found it doesn't affect abortion rates.

We have higher unplanned pregnancy rates. Though arguably those may be due to lower contraception availability and use, those have nothing to do with whether or not mothers would have free health care for their children or to take care of childbirth expenses. We're a more violent country. We have more fatherlessness. Many factors could contribute to our higher abortion rates.

Also, as the New article I cited before mentioned, our abortion rates are actually comparable to those of some countries w/ universal health care. What to make of that?