Today at work, we got onto the subject of the Planned Parenthood scandal (if you haven't heard, here's one of the videos. Be warned, it's fairly graphic.).

Now, I don't want to start an abortion debate. I, personally, am on the fence about abortion. I don't know if I could ever personally have an abortion as I have never been pregnant and don't know how I'd emotionally react to an unwanted pregnancy, and, therefore, believe women should have the choice, but think there should be regulations as there are now.

Getting back on topic track: as we were talking it evolved into how/why the selling of aborted fetuses should be treated differently than the selling of other human body parts, which is illegal (i.e. I can't sell my kidney to the highest bidder etc.). I mentioned that this opens up the discussion for the deciding point in a pregnancy when a fetus is considered a separate human being from its mother (e.g. is it at the moment of conception? After the legal abortion limit? After birth?) Scott Peterson (back around 2005?) was convicted of double homicide - he killed his wife and their unborn child. The jury deemed it a double homicide based off the reasoning that the child could have survived outside the womb.

With that, the following question was then posed: "So, if a person murders a pregnant woman, it's also murder of the unborn child, but it's not murder when the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy...where do or can we draw the line, if there is one? Why do we make a distinction?"

That got me thinking of some of the other "double standards" (I can't think of a better way to describe it) in regards to health care.

Under the ACA, birth control (and under Hyde provisions) some abortions must be a covered medical cost. In general terms: if you don't want a baby/to become pregnant, your costs to prevent a pregnancy are generally covered (in some cases only in certain circumstances). Agreed, if you want to not get pregnant at the moment, you should have access to birth control.

On the flip side, if you want to become pregnant, but for whatever reason are having difficulty or cannot naturally, most insurance plans cover anything between nothing up to around 50% (typically). I read that only 15 states current have legislature that mandates for fertility treatment. In California, for example, insurances are not required to cover treatment, but are required to offer treatment.

My husband and I have been trying to conceive, and for whatever reason it isn't happening. I don't talk about this much, because it is a very sensitive, personal and emotional topic, but I wanted to share my views about something in relation to this.

A while back, my mom and I were discussing the sort of irony regarding covered birth control vs. non-covered fertility treatment. I told her, it's frustrating to think that we could potentially be facing large insurance bills for wanting to have a child. Especially, when it really boils down to the fact that infertility/fertility issues are caused by something that, for whatever reason, isn't functioning properly. Wouldn't that fall under the "quality of life"/medically important? Men have had access to Viagra, because it has to do with "quality of life" for them. But if a woman, for example, isn't ovulating or she is but irregularly, the medical needs to fix or help this are not always covered.

We both agreed it was frustrating, unfair, disheartening, that couples/women who wish to prevent a pregnancy are welcomed and given their needs, while those facing difficulties are on their own, so to speak.

Where do you all fall in the spectrum of this? Had you thought about things like this?



Post a Comment

to top