unintended consequences: Stupak Amendment & miscarriages edition

One of the most inter­est­ing things I have read about the Stu­pak Amend­ment is this:

Will the Stu­pak Amend­ment Affect Insur­ance Cov­er­age for Mis­car­riages? I Think So

Sadly, the author expe­ri­enced a mis­car­riage recently. In her case, as some­times hap­pens, the fetus had yet to be expelled. She was put in the dif­fi­cult posi­tion of either wait­ing for that to occur nat­u­rally, or choos­ing either a chem­i­cal abor­tion or D&C. Each had dif­fer­ent risks and costs. The author, like many women who mis­carry, chose to undergo the procedure.

Although the fetus is this sort of case is deceased, there is some ques­tion (and dis­pute) as to how the pro­ce­dure to remove it is typ­i­cally described med­ically, or how it is sup­posed to be doc­u­mented. It may be described as an abor­tion. If so, then the Stu­pak Amend­ment (which I wrote about ear­lier this week) would for­bid pub­lic fund­ing of these pro­ce­dures even in the case of miscarriage.

It is doubt­ful that even the most ardent of pro-lifers intended to limit access to post-miscarriage med­ical care. The main­stream fem­i­nists who claim that gen­er­ous repro­duc­tive care, includ­ing abor­tion, is a non-negotiable when it comes to health care reform are using this unin­tended con­se­quence as evi­dence that the gov­ern­ment should gen­er­ously fund care but stay the heck out of deci­sions between a woman and her doctor.

How­ever, that posi­tion is not polit­i­cally viable right now. And, I was taken aback at the naïveté of one com­menter who wrote to the OP: “Your elo­quent post points out the prob­lems when leg­is­la­tors do not ade­quately con­sider com­plex issues.” The leg­is­la­tors are try­ing to con­sider com­plex issues, but no result will ever be sat­is­fac­tory to every­one, and there will always be unin­tended con­se­quences. If they try to write in mis­car­riage excep­tions to Stu­pak, the pro-life con­tin­gency will object that such mea­sures will be used to cover up actual abor­tions with mis­car­riage paper­work. Or, women will start try­ing to induce mis­car­riages them­selves at home, so that the care after­ward will be cov­ered by their pub­licly funded health plans.

There will not be any no strings attached pub­lic fund­ing of repro­duc­tive health care any­time soon. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, take a look at how leg­isla­tive bod­ies have always func­tioned in the past, and take a guess as to whether you will be happy with how they han­dle bun­gle this one.

No Comments

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *