Should Medicaid Pay for Abortion

Should Medicaid pay for abortion? This is a very touchy subject and one that has been in the newspapers for months now. It is also the main reason that the passing of the historic health was postponed for the amount of time that it was. I think that even though abortion is a touchy subject and won that has been a main topic since â€Å"Roe vs. Wade in 1973,† I think that is a very important topic and one that will always be discussed for much more time. I think that abortion should be legal and be the decision of the parties involved to make the decision on whether to have one or not.Also, I believe think that abortion should be covered by the tax payers in the case o rape or incest because both of those instances could result in a very tough life for the baby. Either the child will be hated by its mother because every day she looks at him/her it reminds her of her rapist, or the child is born with birth defects. To thoroughly make a good decision on where you stand with the a bortion topic, I think that you must first find out what abortion actually is.Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus, any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy, cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation, and the premature ending or abandonment of an undertaking. Abortion procedures include manual vacuum aspiration and dilation and suction curettage, both of which can be performed in early pregnancy.The social acceptability of abortion as a means of population control has varied from time to time and place to place throughout history. â€Å"It was apparently a common method of family limitation in the Greco-Roman world, but Christian theologians early and vehemently condemned it. It became widely accepted in Europe in the middle Ages. Severe criminal sanctions to deter abortion became common in the 19th century, but in the 20th century those sanctions were gradually modified in many countries. † In the U. S. the 1973 Roe v.Wade decision had the effect of legalizing abortion during the first three months of pregnancy; states were able to implement restrictions on access to abortion after the first trimester, though within constraints set by the courts. Since that decision, there has been a fierce debate between supporters and opponents of a liberalized abortion policy. As you see this is something that has been debated for centuries upon centuries. I have read many articals on abortion and how the procedure is actually conducted.The procedure seems to be very gruesome, that is why I can understand why some people like rep. Bart Stupak are diehard pro-life supporters. If you can recall Bart Stupak who is a senator from Michigan (our own state) was the democrat who along with twelve other pro-life democrats held up the passing of the healthcare bill with his votes until President Obama agreed to sign an executi ve order stating that government funding will not go to covering abortion in this new health care bill. After words Stupak said â€Å"We stood strong,† said Stupak. â€Å"We stood on a principle. Stupak’s argument really goes all the way back to Roe v. Wade. After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid. Over the past two decades, Congress has debated the limited circumstances under which federal funding for abortion should be allowed.For a brief period of time, coverage included cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, and physical health damage to the woman. However, beginning in 1979, the physical health exception was excluded, and in 1981 rape and incest excep tions were also excluded. In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. The first challenges to the Hyde Amendment came shortly after its implementation.The Supreme Court has held that the Hyde Amendment restrictions are constitutional and that states participating in Medicaid are only required to cover abortion services for which they receive federal funding rather than all medically necessary abortions. Challenges under state constitutions have been more successful. Several lawsuits have been brought in individual states arguing that state constitutions afford greater protection for privacy and equal protection than the federal Constitution. The Hyde Amendment affects only federal spending. States are free to use heir own funds to cover additional abortion se rvices. For example, Hawaii, New York, and Washington have enacted laws funding abortions for health reasons. Other states, such as Maryland, cover abortions for women whose pregnancies are affected by fetal abnormalities or present serious health risks. These expansions are important steps toward ensuring equal access to health care for all women. Prior to the 1993 expansion of the Hyde Amendment, thirty states chose not to use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.Initially, a number of states expressed resistance to comply with the expanded Hyde Amendment, and presently thirteen states are under court orders to comply and cover rape and incest in addition to life endangerment. â€Å"Every court that has considered the Hyde Amendment's application to a state's Medicaid program since 1993 has held that states continuing to participate in the Medicaid program must cover abortions resulting from rape or incest in order to be compli ant with the Hyde Amendment, regardless of state laws that may be more restrictive. Federal funding has been covering abortion for years and according to the Hyde Amendment it covers incest and rape. My research has also led me to see that Michigan is one of twenty seven states that receive funding under the Hyde Amendment. This means that one of the states that use federal funding for abortion in special cases has the main representative that is arguing that exact system. This is kind of ironic to me. If the federal funding is there and actually has been there for seventeen years what the point of arguing the bill that will eventually save the government money.I have found some interesting information that if looked at maybe by some of our politicians they would not cause such a big fuss like Stupak and some other extreme conservatives like Sarah Palin about a the health care bill that not only is in the best interest of the people but also the best interest of the government in te rms of the budget but also the insurance companies who now will have more policies out there to bring in more revenue. Here are some interesting facts that I found about what type of women have abortions and why. Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28. 7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19. 5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38. 0%;Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13. 8%. † The reason women have abortion are as follows, â€Å"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i. e. he child is unwanted or inconvenient). † So why not allow the health care bill to cover abortion? If the bill is basically just going to keep the Hyde Amendment rule in place or maybe take it another step forward and require police reports on alleged rapes and incest it really will not make a difference. If only one percent of all abortion are due to rape or incest, that amount of spending will not even dent the federal funding. I think more money is spent by politicians on their private jets that take all over the United States just to make appearances.While abortion remains perhaps the most contentious issue in American politics, what is one person’s principled stand is another’s crime against humanity. Abortion is a decision that should be made by the person going through the process not some politician from Texas for example who lives in a ten thousand square foot home and makes probably a million dollars a year after kick backs. Also if the system of states covering under the correct circumstances has been working for almost twenty years then I say why change it.Many times people let their emotions and personal feeling make their decisions when all they have do is put themselves in the position of the women who was raped, or the male is out of the picture and the mother will not be able to financially support a child and the child might end up in a dumpster, in the street or living in foster homes its whole life. I look at this way and I’m going to state a question to some of these people who think federal funding should not pay for this. Financially speaking as a nation, Is it financially better to cover a $500 dollar procedure once or pay for Medicare, housing, and food for eighteen years?From doing the basic math I think the $500 is a lot cheaper. The United States is a business. And just like any other business it needs money to survive. To maintain that money it has a budget, and that budget at this point is in a major deficit. This bill will save trillions of dollars over the next fifteen years imagine how much more money they could save all states allowed the lower income poverty striking women to have abortion under the state insurance, trillions more would be sav ed. Basic math is the key to answering this, in the end its all business.WORK CITED 1. Gregg Cunningham, WHY ABORTION IS GENOCIDE Winter 2000 2. AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TEXT BOOK 3. Megan Carpentier, Bart Stupak is no healthcare hero (march 22, 2010) 4. Peter Roff, The Next Healthcare Reform Fight: Make the Abortion Executive Order Law (March 24, 2010) Pr 5. Steven Ertelt , New Catholic Bishops Memo: Abortion in Health Care Despite Obama Order (March 30, 2010) 6. Tres Sugar, Congress Debates Whether Health Care Should Cover Abortion (07/09/2009) 7. Angela Blair, Obama's Healthcare Bill Requires All Americans to Pay For Abortions (3/7/2010) 8. The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, â€Å"Medicaid's Role for Women. Issue Briefs: An Update on Women's Health Policy (November 2004). 9. The Guttmacher Institute, â€Å"State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid. † State Policies in Brief (June 1, 2005). ———————————â₠¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€œ [ 2 ]. American government: page 102 [ 3 ]. www. abortion. com [ 4 ]. www. csmonitor. com [ 5 ]. The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, â€Å"Medicaid's Role for Women. † Issue Briefs: An Update on Women's Health Policy (November 2004). [ 6 ]. The Guttmacher Institute, â€Å"State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid. † State Policies in Brief (June 1, 2005). [ 7 ]. www. abortionno. org [ 8 ]. www. abortionno. org