Roundup: TIME Analyzes Government Role in Abortion Access in Health Reform Proposals

Aug 25, 2009, 9:00am

TIME examines government's role in facilitating abortion access in health care reform proposals; medication abortion has not expanded access as expected; Australian provider refuses to prescribe RU-486 until legal protections are enacted.

TIME Examines Government Role in Abortion Funding in Health Reform Proposals
While
acknowledinging that President Obama’s claim that allegations that
health care reform will lead to government funding of abortion is "not
true" is accurate, TIME magazine claims that it does not "tell the
whole story." TIME argues that health care reform will amount to
federal government intervention in broadinening abortion access, in
that it could create a public option that will cover abortion care:

The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage
would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money
in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign
up for the public option would have to pay into the account for
abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to
the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the
public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find
themselves paying for abortion coverage.

That
might be a change for the federal government, in that a public option
is a major scale-up of access to all health care and procedures. But
it’s how most private insurance has always worked. As Guttmacher has found,
a very high percentage — 87% — of private, employer-based plans
already do cover abortion. In other words, while the federal
government might be unfamiliar in facilitating access to surgeries, the
public at large is very familiar with having a small portion of their
premium costs going to cover abortion care.

Medication Abortion Has Not Significantly Expanded Access
Feministing
reports on new data from the Guttmacher Institute that medication
abortion has not expanded access to abortion care in ways that
advocates expected. One significant reason is that advocates initially
hoped that providers who do not offer surgical abortion would provide
access to mifepristone, but that hasn’t happened:

Most mifepristone abortions were performed at or near facilities that
also provided surgical abortion. Only five mifepristone-only providers
of 10 or more abortions were located farther than 50 miles from any
surgical provider of 400 or more abortions.

Becoming
a provider of mifepristone means far more than being willing to write
the prescription, Ann Friedman points out: doctors still need to
perform ultrasounds on women and be capable of performing a surgical
abortion as backup.

Australian Provider Refuses to Prescribe RU-486 Until Legal Protections Are Enacted
The
Queensland government has not clarified the legality of medication
abortion, Queensland provider Caroline De Costa says. In fact, a
19-year-old girl and her partner face charges on allegations of
smuggling RU-486 into the country, reports ABC News Australia. "Premier Anna Bligh says the update to the Criminal Code will happen
as soon as possible, but there is no plan to free up the law for more
abortions."

The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage
would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money
in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign
up for the public option would have to pay into the account for
abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to
the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the
public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find
themselves paying for abortion coverage.

Most mifepristone abortions were performed at or near facilities that
also provided surgical abortion. Only five mifepristone-only providers
of 10 or more abortions were located farther than 50 miles from any
surgical provider of 400 or more abortions.