A million things can go wrong with a pregnancy and they're not always life-threatening.

[Hello_Kitty]

If you think it's "no big deal" that health care plans in the exchange under HCR and, now, the high risk pools deny coverage for abortion you don't get it. It's not just some theoretical thing we ladies are getting hysterical about. If I were pregnant and learned six months into it that my fetus was severely deformed and would probably not survive long after birth I would be faced with the choice of carrying to term or having an abortion procedure far more complicated than the standard first term abortion. The abortion would not be covered by my insurance because the pregnancy does not threaten my life and is not a result of rape or incest. Any idea how much out-of-pocket a surgery with anesthesia and at least an overnight stay at the hospital runs these days? And you're going to tell us this isn't a restriction on abortion?

[Oregone]

1. Its not restrictive. You can pay for an abortion out of pocket

You can also pay for a nice mansion in the West Hills when you finish

[Maru Kitteh]

15. I paid for my abortion out of pocket with my detasseling money.

This is no new state of affairs for much of the country.

[katandmoon]

2. *crickets*

[OhioBlue]

3. wouldn't the larger problem be the late term abortion ban

passed under Bush? Serious question. If the right-to-lifers have it their way your only choices would be to carry to term or have an illegal abortion - right?

Also - do you know if you can even terminate a pregnancy at 6 months if the life of the mother isn't in jeopardy?

I'm asking b/c I'm honestly not sure. I'm thinking that most docs refuse b/c of legal concerns and that is why Dr. Tiller was so important to women.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. My understanding was that only certain types of procedures were banned.

[Autumn]

4. Its obscene

and some people just don't care. It's a win. Nothing else matters.

[Starry Messenger]

6. They know.

They just don't care.

[laughingliberal]

7. Exactly! There are complications of pregnancy which may be survivable but are permanently disabling.

I'm sick to death of people who treat the issue of abortion as if it's just about a bunch of careless sluts who didn't know enough to keep their legs closed and now want to trip on down the street for an abortion before going out to party for the night.

This nauseates me. :puke:

[Liquorice]

8. Women throw themselves under the bus when they support people who

don't support their best interests. It happens all the time, and I don't really understand why women do it so often... It kind of reminds me of the way poor republicans vote against their own self-interests.

The truth is that men generally don't have the same pressing concern about women's issues as women themselves do, which makes sense really. If trade-offs have to be made for policy gain, those trade-offs are more likely to come at the expense of women when it's generally men doing the trading. I don't believe for a second, for instance, that Hillary Clinton would have made such compromises. This is all IMHO, of course.

[Foo Fighter]

10. No doubt, women's interests are not represented.

Unfortunately, those in Congress (with VERY few exceptions) will throw pretty much anybody under the bus if it will further their career and/or ingratiate themselves with the top .01%.

The interests of women and minorities are the first to be thrown aside. Always have been. Always will be.

[defendandprotect]

13. Obviously many female Dems voted for Obama ... too high a level of trust, obviously!!

[Foo Fighter]

9. Hey, look at it this way.

Let's say you decide to carry it to term because you can't afford an abortion and thus, have no other options. Suddenly, in month seven, complications arise and you're rushed to ER. They perform an abortion and as a result of the complications, you can no longer have children. Problem solved!! You won't ever have to worry about not being able to afford to pay for an abortion after that!!

:sarcasm: <--- Uh, that's MAJOR FUCKING SARCASM in case anybody is wondering.

I'm with you, HK. The denial of coverage for abortion procedures for women in the high risk pool is beyond appalling.

[knitter4democracy]

11. Absolutely!! Our health--total health--should be the top concern.

For example, I've been told that I shouldn't have more children. Now, with the surgeries I've had, I'm not comfortable with getting my tubes tied, so that leaves birth control that I'm allergic to or can't tolerate (I like having hair and a temper that doesn't spiral out of control at the least little thing) or my partner getting snipped.

Not all doctors would agree that I can't have more kids, too, so if it happened and I got a doctor who said my life wasn't in danger, would I be able to get an abortion? Nope.

[defendandprotect]

12. K&R --

[madfloridian]

14. Insurance tells woman life not in danger, bills her $9000

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5255

"“Our medical experts have determined that your life was not in danger and you could have carried the pregnancy to term. And, by the way, you owe us $9,000.”

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision.

The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman’s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.

Feldman is speaking out now because of her outrage that the notorious Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health reform measure would extend such federal bans on abortion coverage to the millions of women who are enrolled in the private insurance market. Under this amendment, any insurance plan that wishes to be part of the new national health-care exchange would be prohibited from offering abortion coverage, although most insurance plans currently offer this coverage."

[katandmoon]

16. So somebody tell us how much worse it would be if Repugs were in charge

[katandmoon]

17. So somebody tell us how much worse it would be if Repugs were in charge

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Wish I could rec this. At least I can say to everyone: read this ^ nt

[myrna minx]

18. K&R n/t

[uncommon]

20. I had an "elective" "abortion" a few years ago when a miscarriage didn't follow itself

through.

My life was not in danger.

Luckily for me my insurance at the time DID cover it, but under these restrictions it doesn't sound like it would have.