Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?

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
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:42 PM
Original message
Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?
Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?
Posted by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check at 1:00 PM on November 9, 2009.

This weekend, a group of male pro-life Democrats gambled with women's health, and women lost. By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."

Hospitals and doctors in general do not have terminology to classify a difference between the termination of a live pregnancy and one in which the fetus has already died. To them, a D&C is a D&C, regardless of the state of the "conception materials" removed. Regardless of how many times I made sure to mention to the staff, either for the sake of my sanity or to spare me some sort of imagined shame, that I was ridding myself of my "dead fetus," to them, it was all the same.

I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks. I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.

Thanks to the Stupak amendment, that can now change.

Abortion is a very broad term. The pro-life contingent would like you to think it only applies to selfish, irresponsible women, murdering babies out of fear of inconvenience. That's a caricature they have invented to push their own agenda. Many of the women who seek out abortions are women who have been raped, who have learned that their child could not survive, have learned that giving birth could physically and permanently harm them. Or, thanks to newer and vaguer language, women who have already lost the life they were carrying, and need intervention to save their own.

I was one of the latter. I hope I will be lucky enough to never be again. But if I am, I hope the insurers don't force me to carry that fetus until I medically harm myself, all for the sake of saying that they do not cover abortion services.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. But, but...that's an elective abortion, right?
I mean, she did have choices you know.

Yes, I recognize that this doesn't reflect the majority of women who have abortions, but it does make the point that supporting choice means supporting choice, not picking and choosing what you think is appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. my workmate`s wife had a similiar situation
her baby was`t viable (?) but the insurance company would`t pay for the "abortion" since the baby was over 4 months. she had to wait over a month till the baby inside her died. everyday he became more depressed and angry. i felt helpless because i did`t know what to say to help him....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Marlana Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. A similar situation happened to a friend of mine.
I posted it on another thread earlier and had a couple of people say they thought it was bullshit. I wish there were more women out there telling stories just like this, I think this kind of situation shows exactly how bad the Stupak amendment is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. no woman should ever be in that position-- yet, sadly, I think this is going to be happening more
and more.

it is absolutely disgusting that, in the so-called richest nation in the world, women have to choose between possible death from toxemia, bleeding to death at home, or hoping that their insurance covers the necessary surgery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. But we are just "fear mongering alarmists "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is an important point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. Same situation almost forty years ago
It's not a matter of choice; it's a medical necessity. This amendment has to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. Stupak to hold townhall meeting in Escanaba tomorrow.

ESCANABA -- Congressman Bart Stupak will hold a town hall meeting in Escanaba Wednesday, November 11.

It takes place at Bay de Noc Community College's Besse Center from 5:30 - 7:00 p.m.

The meeting is open to the public. Stupak will answer questions on a range of issues from health care to the economy.

Signs, banners and posters will not be allowed inside the center and only credentialed media will be permitted to record the event.

This should be interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. FourScore -
First of all :grouphug: I'm sorry for your loss.

Thank you for posting this here -- it exposes the effect on real people of the callous action by that C Street bastard Stupid Stupac. The safety of the mother is not the concern of these fetus worshippers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SagefemmeCollective Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. This talk of elective procedure is infuriating...
Every six minutes worldwide a woman dies from an illegal abortion. Abortion is not an elective procedure. Its not like a woman needs a boob job so bad that she will risk everything to obtain one, trying rumored self-boob job methods, or visiting a back alley boobjobber.

In order for a procedure to be elective it must be beneficial, and not imperative that it be performed at any particular time.

Abortion is safest when performed within the first trimester. And pregnancy is not a disease, so an abortion cannot be seen as beneficial. Abortion defies the elective categary. Why? Because abortion is a fundamental need of women during reproductive age.

The need for abortion does not change much based on demographics, religious proclivity, or social status. Contraceptives sometime fail. Pregnancies sometimes fail.

The only factor that has been found to lower abortion rates is unlimited access to abortion and contraception.
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 Fri Oct 20th 2017, 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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