Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Insurance

In addition, on page 4 of the record it states that “federal funds can not be used for abortion nor can anyone with federal health insurance use such funds or plans to obtain an abortion except in instances of rape or incest or if the mother’s life is at risk.” This roadblock places an obstacle in the form of a financial burden on women seeking abortions. In the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Hodgson v. Minnesota, this court ruled that states were not obligated to spend their own money or use their own facilities to subsidize abortions because women had the ability to go to a private physician to obtain an abortion. However, this can be distinguished from the case at bar because under proposition 417 it requires the trans-vaginal ultra sound be performed, which is a procedure separate from the abortion. Therefore, private insurance should absolutely be able to cover the costs of this additional procedure. Because insurance cannot do this, it places a substantial financial obstacle on women, thus creating an undue burden. Therefore, Proposition 417 is written for the sole purpose of creating unnecessary barriers for women wanting an abortion to go

The act takes away federal fund from Planned Parenthood and other facilities that carry out abortion services. The only exception is when a women life is in danger and rape. The act can potentially harm the community members especially those who don’t have insurance coverage and have public insurance from receiving reproductive

As we have previously learned in class, abortion is considered a wedge issue amongst politicians and the general public. I believe this article to be relevant to the course work, because today abortion plays such a massive role in the way we govern ourselves as one united nation. People are either pro-life or pro-choice, or many fall into a gray area unsure of their stance on the topic. With the bill in place people are not given the option to oppose abortion, but are instead told they must or they may find themselves with a criminal record. Many citizens consider women to have the

Think about it. You have been in a long relationship with your boyfriend and you decide to take it to the next level of the relationship; sex. You do it and the next few days you aren’t feeling good. You're having thoughts that maybe you could be pregnant. You want to go somewhere where you won’t be judged and your mom won’t find out by the doctor. You would like to go to Planned Parenthood because you won’t get judged and you have a low income. If the government chooses to not give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood it would fall to the ground. They would never make enough profit to stay open by themselves. Imagine if that was you in that girl's position. You would have to tell your guardian, stress yourself out.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are going to fund Planned Parenthood. With the introduction of Obamacare, Planned Parenthood has become a secondary cost to ensure women have health care throughout the United States. Along with the wasted money being spent on Planned Parenthood, other issues have been revealed about Planned Parenthood. The high cost of administration and the sale of fetus tissue and organs have become the latest in an agency out of control. Because of the wasteful administration of funds and ethical questions about disposing of fetuses, Planned Parenthood should no longer be funded by the Federal government.

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

In her “The New Scarlet Letter -- A is for Abortion”(2011), Linda Bergthold argues that the passing of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as well as the Hyde Amendment, not only berates women who consider abortion an option to an unpremeditated pregnancy, but also may financially “overwhelm” and metaphorically cripple the expecting mother. Bergthold provides statistical evidence in which she states the outrageous cost of having an abortion, and the “stupid” idea of abortion coverage in insurance policies due to the fact that one does not “plan on having an abortion when they sign up for insurance coverage”; not to mention the fact that it may not work as planned in the new health system. Bergthold aims to disprove those who are attempting to

Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides healthcare and education to both men and women, having over 650 health centers that provide healthcare to countless communities around the world. Shockingly, 78% of those who use Planned Parenthoods services live at or below 150% of the federal poverty line, showing how important this organization is to low-income families (Topulos, Greene, Drazen). Their mission statement is “A Reason for Being”, which is shown through their efforts to provide health care, advocate public policies, create educational programs, and endorse research. There are those who do not believe Planned Parenthood should be funded by the government, though, due to the fact that they provide abortions to women in need. Studies show that the effects of not having Planned Parenthood available are disastrous, causing low-income families to lack a healthcare provider and the number of those who are infected with STD’s and STI’s to rise. The biggest concern communities have about the government defunding Planned Parenthood is the effects that it would have on low-income families who would no longer have access to something that many people take for granted: health care. Although many believe that Planned Parenthood mostly provides abortions, in reality, only 3% of the people that seek help from them receive an abortion, while 97% receive affordable and, in many cases,

Another issue that could lead to a civil rights movement is with our new President Donald Trump and where he stands on abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood. This brings up controversy because on the more right side, people’s argument is that you are essentially ending a human life with getting an abortion. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and has more than 7 million pre-born babies that have died as a result of the mothers visiting. The argument for the left is that Planned Parenthood is the country’s leading provider of reproductive health care. If it stops receiving federal funding it could have millions of women, men, and young people from live-saving preventive care: cancer screenings, breast exams,

Millions of women across America will struggle to receive the medical attention they need if the federal government stops funding to Planned Parenthood. Every year 363 million dollars goes into the funding “pot” collectively at Planned Parenthood’s nationwide (Clark 5). This money is used predominantly by women; for six in ten women, Planned Parenthood acts as their main source of health care (Clark 4). Many individuals with low incomes depend on these clinics to maintain or help better their health. Recently, the federal government is trying to pass the Pence Amendment, which would eliminate funding to these institutions. The federal government needs to realize how important Planned Parenthood

The state of Texas has pulled its Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, leaving poor residents with few options for affordable healthcare. Medicaid, a program focused on helping low-income families and individuals receive healthcare, has always been jointly operated by the state and the federal government. But to who this program would be eligible for is entirely up to the state. More conservative states, like Texas for example, strictly reserve Medicaid for only the most severe cases of poverty-stricken families, leaving a large portion of low-income residents uninsured. The Affordable Care Act, a federally mandated reform of Medicaid introduced by President Obama, would provide healthcare for many American citizens in need. Despite being

H.R.7 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017 is a proposed legislation that would put the Hyde Amendment into permanent affect (govtrack2017). This would ban all federal funds and all federally funded health care coverages from paying for elective abortions (congress2017). The only time the coverage of an abortion would be covered is if the mother was raped, incest had occurred, or the mother’s life was at risk (Congress2017). This legislation would also make it illegal for someone to get an abortion by a federal employee or at a federal clinic (govtrack2017). Despite the abortion taking place, whether it was legal or illegal, insurance would cover any complications (policy.house). The No

NFTA is a protective measure for unborn children, but more importantly, for taxpayers’ moral rights. The thought that an individual’s funding, someone who may oppose abortion, supporting the procedure is a controversial issue. The goal is to legitimate the policy to ensure that no taxpayers’ dollars funds for abortion, and to implement penalties for business that provide insurance coverage for the procedure. This push is an initiative to revert back to Pre-Roe v. Wade era; the policy is a tool to potentially illegalize abortion. Until then, consequential penalties are proposed for those who support the abortion, or use the procedure. There isn’t a specific audience targeted;however, the policy, if passed, will affect low-income women. The policy

A person wrote a letter to the editor in “The News-Sentinel”, saying that insurance should cover women who want to go out and have babies. On the other hand, this person wants women who want to have an abortion to come up with the money themselves and that the government or insurance should not cover abortions (“The Rant,” 2009). Many believe that some women use abortions as a form of birth control. For women who find themselves in that situation, the expense for those types of abortions should be paid for by those women. However, in certain cases such as incest, rape, genetics, failed birth control and endangerment to the life of the expectant mother. Those situations should be covered by insurance.

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to enforce that federal loans would not be used in abortion services (“Background: “Should” 4). The pros and consist of the choice being available to women when they need it and the cons consist of safety concerns for the living fetus. As a nation, Abortion needs to be made illegal because life begins at conception because abortion is unsafe, a waste of money, a loss of opportunity, and a toll of psychological pain.