I need some clarification. My understanding is that private insurance does not pay for abortion, like it doesn't pay for contraceptives -- maybe this has changed?? Women seeking abortions then, must pay for it themselves unless they qualify through Planned Parenthood or some other funding mechanism - is that correct? They don't need to get a prescription from a doctor to have an abortion either if I've got it right. They can go straight to a clinic. What is the current battle being waged for abortion funding - is it funding planned parenthood. or individual abortion clinics? Is this private funding or public funding? Is there a battle for insurance companies to include abortion as a treatment??
I think I need to understand this before going any further.
Marta
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> I think I agree with you on the above, but as of now, a social model that
> both of us agree is more desirable than the status quo, in so far as
> abortion is concerned, is not at all on anybody's (including most women's &
> reproductive rights orgs') agenda in the USA. The same for much of medical
> services, in fact. The political choice presented to us seems to be either
> the medical model or "personal responsibility." The *necessity and
> desirability of social provisions* of abortion services are by no means
> agreed upon, not even among "leftists." That's the reality, and where do
> we go from here? Is your argument that we should "deregulate" reproductive
> services, so that women's orgs can offer abortion services without medial
> licensing? Based upon what I know of American social dems' opinion of
> abortion, they won't fight for the public provision of it. Ask Max if you
> doubt it.
> When the ruling class seriously go after Medicare, Medicaid, etc., they
> will focus on "waste," "fraud," etc., just as they did in the "welfare
> reform." In ideology, we're responsible workers and consumers. So, it is
> in this context that I'm leery of the language that puts down access to any
> part of health care -- including abortion -- as simply a "personal
> decision." Yes, reproductive choices should be women's, but choices can't
> be made when services are not available or accessible to begin with. And
> on what basis do we make services available? If not as part of health
> care, then what? The language of health & well-being, I think, can be
> rethought, and a feminist language of health doesn't have to reinforce the
> medical professionals' control over women's bodies, does it?
>
> >Some feminists in
> >Europe (Maria Mies, silvia Kontos, I would especially
> >recommend Theresia Degener's "Female
> >Self-Determination between Feminist Claims and
> >'Voluntary' eugenics, between 'Rights' and
> >Ethics" Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering,
> >vol. 3, No. 2, pp 87-99, 1990) ) are
> >alarmed by this reality. The power of a woman giving
> >birth has been handed over to
> >physicians. Women think they are in charge but they
> >aren't. Their pregnant bodies have been
> >commodified by the medical profession just as disabled
> >people's whole lives have been.
>
> I'm aware of the above line of argument, but, regarding abortion, what is
> to be more worried is the *dwindling supply* of abortion service itself.
> If abortion is not a legitimate part of medicine, why should doctors be
> compelled to learn how to do it? In fact, many of them are avoiding it
> (for understandable reasons, probably, in that by providing this service
> they are liable to be verbally and physically attacked). So, again, what
> is to be done? (One can only complain of commodification of X when X is
> actually commodified.) As for your concern of reproductive engineering,
> I'd say that the low social value placed on abortion is directly correlated
> with the high premium placed on reproductive engineering -- motherhood at
> all costs, voluntary or involuntary.
>
> Yoshie
>
> P.S. There is no mass movement for free child care either. And public
> education is under attack, and there are a variety of "school choice"
> programs -- vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- are offered to lure parents
> into thinking of themselves as "consumers" of education services.
-- Marta Russell author Los Angeles, CA Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract http://www.commoncouragepress.com/