FACT: Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo Op-Ed)

[jefferson_dem]

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate
By T.R. Reid
Sunday, March 14, 2010; A17

Countless arguments have been advanced for and against the pending bills to increase health-care coverage. Both sides have valid concerns, which makes the battle tight. But one prominent argument is illogical. The contention that opponents of abortion should oppose the current proposals to expand coverage simply doesn't make sense.

Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html

[Skinner]

1. Interesting. I must admit I was skeptical when I started reading.

But these two paragraphs in particular are quite convincing...

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. "If you're (sexually) active," she said, "the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that's easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free."

[jefferson_dem]

2. If a parent's foremost responsibility is maintaining the health and welfare of his or her kids...

That challenge is less ominous when the "social safety net" of universal healthcare is in place. On the other hand, if family planning services are made more accessible (for all citizens), we will naturally see fewer pregnancies in the first place. It's logical.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. Yes, but.....

Conservatives hate contraception nearly as much as they hate abortion.

Can't you hear them? "Obamacare will be handing out condoms to twelve year olds."

Sigh...

[patrice]

6. Contraception is a sacrament in a slave culture.

And if we are going to sacrifice even one person to ANYTHING, fetuses should not have an exemption, because to protect the sources of cannon fodder perpetuates the god that demands our minds, hearts, and blood.

[laughingliberal]

8. +1 nt

[Vinca]

3. The article makes so much sense.

To hear some pro-lifers talk, you'd think women intentionally get pregnant so they can go out for an abortion with the girls. Women with access to medical care will more likely opt for birth control rather than the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. A woman who called into a radio show yesterday had a solution for ending abortions that I hadn't considered before: mandated vasectomies. How about that, Mr. Stupak?

[patrice]

5. Phony Pro-Lifers are against Universal HC and for WAR. They are so completely transparently

dishonest that it is absolutely totally dumbfounding that they exist at all as a political entity, so the only explanation is that Pro-Life itself is a lie.

[LiberalFighter]

7. So we can now tell anti-choicers that if they are against Single Payer

that they want more abortions.

Or how about they are racist because they want minorities to have abortions?