Is a lack of universal health care increasing the abortion rate in the US?

Question

I am wondering what pro-lifers think about the health care problems in the US. Could a lack of access to prenatal care be pushing some women into abortion? What about women who only have health insurance through work, and would not be able to take a child to the doctor and also stay home to raise it? Do you think that health care access is an important issue for pro-lifers? Is a vote against increasing access to prenatal care a vote for increased numbers of abortions?

In Wisconsin, married women and women over the age of 25 are NOT eligible for medicaid-prenatal coverage if they are pregnant with a first child. ONLY familes with children already born are eligible. This is why we are still paying off my son's prenatal and delivery bills, but my younger daughter's bills were covered. I assume many other states have similar policies.

Answer 1

I doubt it very much.

Pro-life people seem to think that personal responsibility is the only issue in terms of raising children, and that honest hard work is just something you choose to do, or choose not to do. It's really not that simple for most people.

I'm a therapist, and recently evaluated a young girl who had just had an abortion. She was 13, actually. She went to a party, didn't realize what she was doing, got drunk, and ended up getting pregnant. She no longer drinks, nor is she sexually active. She could have given it up for adoption, but said she would have dropped out of school if she had to carry it to term, or would have tried to poison herself enough with some substance to end the pregnancy. She didn't want to have the baby, or carry it to term, so she would have endangered her life to end the pregnancy if abortion wasn't an option.

It really doesn't matter what our individual opinions are on the issue. We have to try to stay realistic, and not abandon all compassion for any woman who becomes pregnant at the wrong time.

Answer 2

Any gov't run operation is to be met with skepticism and hesitation. The govt is currently broken - it is not run by the People, of the People and for the People. It is run by the uber wealthy and big business, for the uber wealthy and big business and for the uber welathy and big business. This is a fact. And the biggest briber - oops - contributer to campaigns is the healthcare industry. The largest single special interest group (read: folks who pay politicians so they get favors), is the healthcare industry. That is a fact. Now....you want the govt to run healthcare. Hmmmm...you claim it will be just as good as it is now and cheaper. Hmmm...I would like to see the fine print on that one. True, every other industrialized nation has a system of national healthcare. Also true is the people of these nations pay upwards of 55% income taxes and do not necessarily get immediate treatment. Ask Canadians. Ask Norwegians. The current system is broken because of greed. Look at any hospital bill (for an overnight stay or minor surgery - not just a flu shot) and see what they are charging for common items. $1/aspirin...$1.25/cotton swab....$0.75 a tongue depresser....$75 a day for linen service. The go to Target, Walmart, or Kmart and see what those items cost. Yeah, much cheaper. That is just a start as there are numerous other greed-related items in the healthcare industry. So while I am not entirely against a national health system, I do not trust having these foxes (politicians) in charge of this henhouse (healthcare).

Answer 3

I don't think so, that would only cause more miscarriages and birth defects. I never heard of any woman who had an abortion because they didn't have access to prenatal care, nor because they didn't have health insurance at work to be able to stay home.

People do what they have to do to carry out the choices that they make within the constraints provided by the options available. Women have abortions because they are unprepared for the pregnancy and do not feel that they have the emotional/financial resources AFTER the birth to properly care for the child.

Answer 4

As much as I disagree with Raj, he does have some correct points. The vast majority of those who obtain abortions are teenaged girls who do not want a child at this point in their lives, not some middle class woman struggling to pay for health insurance which is through her job, but wants nothing more than insurance to cover her prenatal care, baby when it is born, and to be a stay at home mom.
Also, it is true those 49 million-some Americans without health insurance figure is misleading, and his breakdown is correct.

But when he starts yammering on about feminism, he is incorrect. Abortion existed in the US, hell, even long before the US, before Roe V. Wade and the feminist movement.

Answer 5

I think that the present political&social climate in this country has a very definate impact on health care for women,especially as relates to the abortion issue.I staunchly oppose anyone who says that it's not woman's right to chose.It's a very personal and,i have no doubt,wrenching decsion to make,but I digress,If sweeping changes aren't made and people don't stop grubbing around to wrench dollars from an already over-burdened middle class, and much-needed programs like National Healthcare,it will be a slippery-slope to the Dark Ages of illegal,un-safe abortions
TL

Answer 6

I think a very small percentage of the population would be affected by access to prenatal care. People don't want children sometimes because "they don't want children" due to career choices, or they are too poor in general. Even if they get pre-natal help, they can't feed them or clothe them. Daddy is in jail. Mommy might have substance abuse issues. Pre-natal care is just one sliver of the big picture when it come to abortion.

Answer 7

No I don't think so. Because when a woman gets pregnant the liberal medicaid for pregnant women rules kick in.

As for someone stating that 70% of those unisured will be insured in 3 months is pure hogwash, for lack of a better term. Health care is my teaching area.

No medicaid is for all in most places (unfortunately). The rule you cite about 1st births seems odd to me.

Answer 8

even though US abortion rates are declining overall, the rates for poor women are increasing. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2002/10/08/nr_340502.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/05/index.htmlsince
unintended pregnancy rates are increasing for poor women, and decreasing for better-off women, i'd say that it probably *is* a factor. (about half of all uninteded pregnancies end in abortion) Most unintended pregnancies could be prevented with consistent, correct use of modern contraceptives. poorer women have less access to contraceptives (even though they are free in many places) and they also have a higher rate of failure (perhaps not enough education on the proper use?) the fact that poorer women are also less likely to have health insurance coverage probably plays into this as well. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/04/index.html

so it may not be access to prenatal care, but access to sexual & reproductive health care in general.

and the last i heard, america has the worst health care system of all developed nations. not only because of access, but in terms of the cost to patients and the quality of preventative care. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5331/

Answer 9

A lack of prenatal care, as well as "nutrition supplements, welfare payments, and housing assistance" (Faludi, 1992, p. 426), has been harmful to poorer mothers, so some of them may have gotten abortions just to keep themselves out of squalor. Pro-lifers definitely don't like the idea of their taxes going toward abortions, and universal health care might lead to this.

Answer 10

Abortion is an individual difficult decision that is made for too many different reasons to narrow it down to something as straight forward as your question suggests. To try and narrow it down to fit into your view of the state of affairs in regard to lack of healtcare access is very limited indeed.