Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It makes no sense for any health plan to not pay 100% of the cost of an abortion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:59 PM
Original message
It makes no sense for any health plan to not pay 100% of the cost of an abortion
If a child is born to a subscriber of a plan the child is going to cost the plan money, providing for abortions saves a health plan (government, private or hybrid) costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. health insurance companies are political
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. i agree entirely.
it's a medical procedure performed by a doctor. should be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamtechus Donating Member (868 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's an elective procedure
Most health plans don't cover those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Exactly
My current policy covers abortion in case of life of the mother, rape or incest, and that's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
36. I think that's fair, and it addresses the medical necessity cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. What in the world is the matter with you people.
What part of women dying from illegal abortions is unclear to you?

Seriously, this place reads just like Free Republic sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
59. Off point.
It's not that elective abortions are illegal; just that they are not paid for by insurance.

If a woman wants to use a folk nostrum or decides to procure a back-alley abortion, it's little different from having somebody who's hand surgery or bust enlargment isn't covered using a folk nostrum or trying some off-brand clinic to have the 'work' done.

Some things are deemed medically necessary; some things are elective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. True but this one saves the plan a lot of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I thought we were opposed
to insurance companies making decisions based solely on finanical interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You do not want premium and/or tax dollars used wisely and efficiently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Don't put words in my mouth
What I said was that I thought we on DU were opposed to insurance companies making decisions based purely on profit motive. Your argument is that they should do it because it is a good financial move, so are we now in favor of insurance companies making decisions based on their bottom lines?

I personally want insurance companies to provide payment for medically necessary procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. Knocking off old folks would do the same. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. There's a difference if the legality of that, now isn't there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. Just trying to be practical like you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Who are you to decide whether a woman takes the risk of death or
permanent injury that pregnancy and childbirth has? Every single pregnancy can quickly become life threatening. Abortion is part of a woman's health care options and the reasons for one should be between her and her doctor, not some medical board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No one here is making that decision
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 07:47 PM by FLDCVADem
Just stating the fact that except in rare instances, abortion is considered an elective procedure.

***edited to add: Yes, every single pregnancy can quickly become life threatening, in which case my insurance (can't speak for others) covers abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. But you are seem to support a one time procedure that prevents much greater costs

to only be covered if it is medically necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yes
Because I don't want anything covered that isn't medically necessary, cost saving or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. So no preventative care? No annual exams without something necessitating it?

No cancer screening if there is no reason to believe the person does in fact have cancer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I see those as medically necessary
You don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. No, people elect to have a cancer screen. People elect to have blood tests to check for things
No one goes to get a chest x-ray without symptoms of anything to relieve a medical necessity. Those things are paid for to save costs. Not because it is necessary for the person to have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. We'll just agree to disagree
IMO, cancer screenings are medically necessary. YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
52. The mileage of so many women varied that we got Roe.
Who in the world are you to decide for other women what they need?

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. No, I'm talking about the decision to take that risk...you can't force that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. No one is n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. So rape and incest cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. Absolutely
And unless we want to start a donor-designation system on our taxes (I'll happily opt out of a great deal of the defense budget, thanks, as well as corporate welfare), health care is health care, and decisions should be made on a medical basis, not on a political one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Would you agree that not every abortion
is medically necessary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I'd agree that
if a woman, in consultation with her doctor, thinks it's necessary, it's necessary.

Pregnancy is a medical condition. If not wanted, it is a condition that may need medical assistance. And it's not your business or mine, unless we are the owner of the uterus in question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
35. That's different. If a doctor decides there's a danger to the mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Every single pregnancy can end in death or permenent injury.
Every single one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Right. And if a doctor has a patient in danger, that's when it becomes a medical necessity.
I think it would be fair to cover those cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. You are for forced pregnancy then.
The potential death or health problems exist in every single pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. I've never been an advocate of forcing people to have sex.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 09:44 PM by dem629
If you could drop the hyperbole for just a minute, I'd like to ask a question.

You seem to be making the case that women should have abortions because of the potential dangers, even if their doctor doesn't detect a problem or if they don't foresee one. Is that your position? If not, please explain.

As you well know, I'm in favor of having a plan that pays for abortions that are medically necessary. So we're not arguing about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. If a woman is pregnant and does not want to be because of the risk
then, yes, she should have access to safe legal abortions. Things can happen during a pregnancy or childbirth that a doctor can't foresee. Why on earth should anybody but the person whose life is potentially at risk have a say in things? That's barbaric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. Whether a woman CAN do that is a different topic.
We're discussing whether it should be part of the coverage in a public payment plan.

So we're back to square one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Most pregnancies are elective, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yes they are
But once pregnant, medical care is necessary for the best outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. That is not the point -- and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Sorry, but I'm not a mind reader
If you're trying to make a point, you should just come out and make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Just follow your own logic.
If your "it results in a better outcome" applies to covering the medical costs of an elective pregnancy/delivery, then it should equally apply to covering the medical costs of an elective UNpregnancy.

Considering the outcome only for the woman who is pregnant and wants to be gives her preferential treatment over the woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be, for absolutely no good reason - unless you consider a moral judgment against a woman's right to autonomy over her reproductive choices that may not choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy, a good reason.

I don't. But that is what the "abortion is an elective procedure" is based on. Because other elective procedures are covered. Example: I had a tubal ligation. Entirely elective. Entirely covered.

Yes, I get that it's BETTER for the pregnant mother and the child she wants to have good health care she could not otherwise afford without coverage. So if that's the argument, it would also be BETTER for the woman who does NOT want a child to have abortion coverage to help pay for a pregnancy TERMINATION that SHE could not otherwise afford.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
65. Once pregnant, proper medical care including the option for termination is necessary.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 11:19 PM by Gormy Cuss
You're drawing the line at a place that fits your comfort zone. On a medical basis there is no difference in the merit of paying for abortion or a full term pregnancy.


eta: I remember when health insurance companies excluded pregnancies under pre-existing condition clauses as a matter of course, and also when they refused to pay visits related to birth control because it wasn't medically necessary. We really don't need to go back there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Yes they are
But once pregnant, medical care is necessary for the best outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. As a federal employee during the Reagan/Bush I years, my health plan did not cover abortions but
it did cover tubal ligations and the latter was just as elective as the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. Women's health is not "elective".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
62. Well doctor, your license should be revoked
What's that? You're not a physician? Imagine that...

Whom the fuck are you to pretend to be in the exam room with me and my physician? Elective? Oh please, I can't wait for the day until the general population gets in your exam room. Then you could tell us what about your private health care is up for public consumption...or not.

Your prostate exam goes against my religion. My bible is very clear about this. It says that you and your doctor are perpetrating a sin against good believers everywhere. It's right there in the section where Jesus discusses to whom we should deny health care. Don't fight it, otherwise you will go to hell. My reading of a book that has nothing to do with science is all that I need to keep you from obtaining the health care that you need. But don't worry, I'm a values voter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
63. Good thinking.
Let's make sure fertility and impotence treatments aren't covered either because both are elective. For that matter, let's eliminate coverage for pregnancy because no one's forcing women to have children. Oh yeah! Birth control. Totally elective. Tell people to zip it if they can't afford to pay for BC on their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. better then paying for social services for a live child or toddler?
maybe we should just pay to sterilize some people and save some real money and protect kids from people who would make bad parents. :sarcasm: Its also cheaper than a woman giving birth so insurance companies should promote abortions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I didn't say they should promote it, just pay for it if that is the decision of the insured. Makes

zero sense for them not to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It only makes zero sense
If you assume that the woman won't go out and pay for the abortion with her own money or at a reduced price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. Wrong. It makes zero sense if you think that women's health care
shouldn't be a political bargaining chip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
30. Since it is fairly rare
to actually cure someone of cancer, why treat it? After all, in a great many cases you are only setting the person up for the next round of far more costly and difficult treatments. Based on your logic, we could save alot of money here by just letting them pass, keeping them alive is clearly very expensive. It would not be the moral thing to do, but it would be much cheaper.

Since kids are so expensive and pregnancy a life threatening condition which causes a serious financial burden on our insurance, we could just license reproduction, with the number of licenses available dictated by the available funds in the budget and the licenses issued in accordance with the genetic fitness of the potential parents (to assure lowest costs).

Heck, if cost is all that matters, we could save lots more money by simply not providing care for anything, just let nature have its way.

This entire line of argument is simply lame and ignorant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
37. If it covers birth, it should cover abortion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem629 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
38. Wait 'til Glenn Beck reads THIS thread!
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 09:22 PM by dem629
;)

I think I read somewhere here that he has referenced this site. Heh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
47. Abortion is at times a medical necessity...
there are plenty of legitimate reasons for having one.

Now the situation of a one night stand resulting in a pregnancy, should be allowed or have access to the day after pill. But I do not think that that kind of situation should be covered by any insurance.

I am wrong for thinking that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. You want to punish sexually active women with pregnancy?
OMFG, I've died and gone to freeperville. :crazy:

On what planet would a pregnancy remedy irresponsibility?

OMFG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. that is not what I said..
"You want to punish sexually active women with pregnancy?" Well no. If they have access to the morning after pill, there is no pregnancy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. If? Do you really understand what you are proposing?
What IF they don't? Then what?
\
Geezus, Joseph and Mary. Let's make abortions impossible to get so that "irresponsible" young women have children and continue this cycle ad infinitum. To assuage the self-indulgent and queasy among us.

Let's do THAT. Forget about good public health policy that shows that the number of abortions goes DOWN when birth control and abortion are accessible. Let's deny access to abortions. Because punishing others is more important to us than actually reducing abortions. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. There is no way to justify not paying for them to shareholders or taxpayers

the cost to a health plan of abortion vs. child is a no brainier, the reason for the decision to have an abortion doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
55. In Canada and Western European w/ national healthcare coverage, abortion is covered. Here's an
interesting article on the subject:
http://open.salon.com/blog/grannypower/2009/08/05/abort...
Excerpt:
Check out this information from the Center for Disease Control in 2004: "In this report, the abortion rate for the United States was higher than rates reported for Canada and Western European countries."

Does this sound strange? Canada and Western European countries have national health coverage, including coverage for elective abortions. The USA doesn't, yet its abortion rate is higher. One side note, abortions decreased more rapidly during the Clinton Administration than it did during the Bush II Administration.

So let's stop all the arguing for a few minutes and look at the facts.

With guaranteed healthcare coverage, people will have more accessible income to spend to care for their families. They will have a sense of security that they don't have now. When and if an unexpected pregnancy happens, will they be more or less likely to get an abortion in this situation?

Or in a society that has healthcare security, will women have better access to birth control? Will they have a regular doctor who can advise them on reproduction, either as teenagers or women beyond middle age, but still of childbearing age?

Folks, the writing is on the wall. Women living in a society that provides some healthcare security don't have as many unwanted pregnancies nor do they opt for abortions as a consequence.
(more at link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. ***Thank you***
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
56. How's come VIAGRA is covered by most insurance plans, yet contraception and abortion often AREN'T?
Hmmm?
Are erections medically necessary???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
57. I completely agree with you.
Factor in the costs of a child's healthcare until 18 and that seems like a no-brainer to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
58. As a man, I trust women to make choices regarding their health and their bodies.
It ain't up to me. It ain't my body.

However, I'll support and help defend a woman's right to choose. I vote progressive and don't trust any pro-life Pol. If a pol doesn't protect a woman's right to choose then he/she won't get my vote or money or support.

We need to stop the war on women already.

knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
64. My Catholic schoolteacher insurance plan didn't.
They refused to pay for anything that compromised our fertility--even to save our lives. Abortion was right out, even to save our lives. It got really quiet in the teachers' lounge the day I asked about that. Apparently, no one at the girls school where I taught at the time had read all the way through it. Sobering thought--even if we were dying on the table, hemorraging out from a bad miscarriage and needing a hysterectomy, they wouldn't pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ControlledDemolition Donating Member (901 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
67. The Republicans would be fine with abortion as long as it was the result of a Predator strike...
After-all, you must keep the Military Industrial Complex happy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 18th 2019, 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC