Yes, there should be a stipulation for the woman's health. If the Senate bill holds, it should be better on that front.
Rather than repeat myself, see my comments above on abortion. I just wanted to address this:
It is much less expensive to provide an abortion than pay for the medical costs of pregnancy, delivery, and the child's medical expenses, some of which -are- mandatory for insurers to cover.
Part of me believes that expense shouldn't be such a big factor in the decision to have an abortion. It's kind of implying that the less costly an a abortion is, the more likely the woman is going to have one. You could also argue that it's cheaper to execute a prisoner than it is to keep him or her in prison for life or rehabilitate them. Should these decisions be driven by cost? It's a tricky line. For those who need abortions, it shouldn't bankrupt them. On the other hand, the woman shouldn't have an abortion if she would have carried the baby to term without issue if she couldn't afford the abortion.
It's already up to insurers whether or not to cover pelvic exams and contraception. My argument is not that the bill makes things better. It's just that I don't see how it makes things worse as the open letter states.
no subject
Rather than repeat myself, see my comments above on abortion. I just wanted to address this:
It is much less expensive to provide an abortion than pay for the medical costs of pregnancy, delivery, and the child's medical expenses, some of which -are- mandatory for insurers to cover.
Part of me believes that expense shouldn't be such a big factor in the decision to have an abortion. It's kind of implying that the less costly an a abortion is, the more likely the woman is going to have one. You could also argue that it's cheaper to execute a prisoner than it is to keep him or her in prison for life or rehabilitate them. Should these decisions be driven by cost? It's a tricky line. For those who need abortions, it shouldn't bankrupt them. On the other hand, the woman shouldn't have an abortion if she would have carried the baby to term without issue if she couldn't afford the abortion.
It's already up to insurers whether or not to cover pelvic exams and contraception. My argument is not that the bill makes things better. It's just that I don't see how it makes things worse as the open letter states.