Should Insurance Pay For Abortion?

I was reading an opinion piece,

here,

and the subject was outrage over the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment states federal funds cannot be used for abortion.

The opinion piece goes onto express outrage over women not being able to afford abortions, because it is not covered by insurance, and the author seems to think free abortions are part of a females reproductive rights.

In actuality only safe access to abortion is the right, the financial burden should be assumed by the woman choosing the abortion.

I disagree abortion should be forced to be covered under insurance, private or federally funded.

The author makes a point that Viagra is covered and abortion should be too then. Well Viagra is a pill and abortion is a surgical procedure so the two are not comparable.

I cannot understand how this author also makes it into a feminist issue.

Abortion is a reproductive right, not a feminist issue.

Thoughts?

So, women who are the victims of rape should have to pay for their own abortions?

Women who are the victims of incest?

Women who have complications that would jeopardize their lives, the life of the fetus, or both?

All of them should have to pay for their own abortions?

During my third year OB/GYN rotation, I saw several women who had abortions in their past medical history for various reasons. Some were for critical medical reasons, some were because it was an unwanted pregnancy. Either way, it is not the job of the insurance agency to decide what is and isn't "worthwhile" when it comes to reproductive health.

As a woman, I'm a bit shocked our society still doesn't recognize the female half of their population as being responsible enough to make decisions about her own body.

There are exceptions to almost every rule. When it is to save the life of the mother, than yes, it should be covered by health insurance (and most policies do cover it then, but it is considered a "complicated pregnancy" versus "same as any other illness"). In the other situations described, the morning after pill will solve the need for a surgical termination in many of those situations. Should the insurance policy cover an abortion for any form of sexual assault? No.The assailant should cover those bills.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
As a woman, I'm a bit shocked our society still doesn't recognize the female half of their population as being responsible enough to make decisions about her own body.

What I find shocking and disconcerting about your post is your last statement quoted above. If a woman is truly responsible enough to make decisions about her own body, she would make the decision that would not result in an unwanted pregnancy (celibacy or birth control). If a woman makes the decision to engage in activities that result in an unwanted pregnancy, then SHE should pay for her abortion or take really good care of herself and the fetus with that health insurance plan so she can place the child up for adoption with a loving couple who really want, but cannot procreate, their own child.

And while many insurance policies are now covering Viagra, just remember who that drug is for and then look at who is writing the verbiage of your health insurance policy.

We should also remember that health insurance policies are intended to cover care that is preventative and medically necessary. Arguments to cover Viagra are a stretch, but covering infertility or voluntary abortions are a personal decision that are not medically necessary. Many insurance policies do not even cover birth control pills, not because they would rather pay for a pregnancy but because it is not medically necessary. They will usually cover male and female sterilization, but not the reversal. Again, because the latter is not medically necessary and the former costs the insurance company less than a pregnancy costs.

We need to have LESS govt involvement over what insurance companies must cover so the premiums are affordable for all. The only things that are truly necessary are preventative care and trauma/injury. If you get regular physicals / dental care / vision care, exercise and eat healthy there is a really good chance you won't even need to see a doctor with the exception of injuries.

Elective treatments should never be covered unless the insurance company wants to accept that risk or it prevents illness or other conditions in the future.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure, there is no reason why it should not be covered by insurance.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
Should the insurance policy cover an abortion for any form of sexual assault? No.The assailant should cover those bills.

Good luck with that one. The time it takes to go through a court preceding, convict a rapist (in which monetary awards cannot be given), and then take them through a civil trial to cover the cost of the abortion, is typically longer than the human gestation period. Also, what do you do if the rapist simply doesn't have the money?

If a woman is truly responsible enough to make decisions about her own body, she would make the decision that would not result in an unwanted pregnancy (celibacy or birth control). If a woman makes the decision to engage in activities that result in an unwanted pregnancy, then SHE should pay for her abortion

So, you've never made a mistake and forgotten to take your medicine one day/ All it takes is missing ONE birth control pill, or spacing them too far apart, to create a situation that can support a pregnancy. What about women who take antibiotics, not knowing that certain antibiotics can interact (and negate) certain types of birth control? I've seen that situation more than a few times, simply because not everyone has the same level of medical knowledge. I can't blame the patient for that.

What about women who are drug addicts or alcoholics, and have no intention of stopping those behaviours even once finding out they are pregnant? Most of them certainly can't afford an abortion, and allowing them to bring a child into the world would most likely result in a child with serious physical and psychological defects. Why shouldn't there be a stopgap for those sorts of situations?
or take really good care of herself and the fetus with that health insurance plan so she can place the child up for adoption with a loving couple who really want, but cannot procreate, their own child.

We should also remember that health insurance policies are intended to cover care that is preventative and medically necessary. Arguments to cover Viagra are a stretch, but covering infertility or voluntary abortions are a personal decision that are not medically necessary.

So, because YOU don't think it's a medical necessity (having never been in the situation), you think it's okay to make a blanket statement that affects 49-50% of the population?

Do you understand what a physical and emotional toll a pregnancy, even when wanted, is on a woman? Can you even fathom what it would be like to have to give birth to a child you don't want, or who was forced upon you, simply because you can't afford an abortion?

Many insurance policies do not even cover birth control pills, not because they would rather pay for a pregnancy but because it is not medically necessary. They will usually cover male and female sterilization, but not the reversal. Again, because the latter is not medically necessary and the former costs the insurance company less than a pregnancy costs.

Most insurers cover birth control with a small copay of usually $10-20 for a several month prescription. Get your facts straight.

We need to have LESS govt involvement over what insurance companies must cover so the premiums are affordable for all.

Less government oversight causes insurance companies to dump cancer patients because they "felt they should have known" they had cancer (I've seen this several times), causes them to refuse new treatments because "they feel the old therapy works well enough" (this is common), and refuse to treat children with congenital conditions because they were diagnosed prior to birth, when coverage begins.

Why does that sound like a good system to you?

The only things that are truly necessary are preventative care and trauma/injury. If you get regular physicals / dental care / vision care, exercise and eat healthy there is a really good chance you won't even need to see a doctor with the exception of injuries.

Absolutely not true. What about people with inborn errors of metabolism? These are insanely common, and require lifelong monitoring and medication. What about SCID? What about cancer? What about age-related degeneration? What about genetic disorders? What about pneumonia? What about the flu?

All of these can occur even with the best diet, best preventative measures, and an excellent exercise program. To say otherwise is absolute and complete ignorance of human biology.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Good luck with that one. The time it takes to go through a court preceding, convict a rapist (in which monetary awards cannot be given), and then take them through a civil trial to cover the cost of the abortion, is typically longer than the human gestation period. Also, what do you do if the rapist simply doesn't have the money!

That's the nice thing about Planned Parenthood. They are more affordable. And if a woman doesn't want a child she will not wait until she actually receives restitution for her medical bills to get the abortion. If you incur medical bills as a result of sexual assault (broken arm, concusion), you CAN sue the assailant for those bills. However, because it is an injury, some health insurance companies will cover the Morning After pill (it's usually called the Supplemental Accident Benefit and may not limited to the exclusions of the policy but a set dollar amount).

So, you've never made a mistake and forgotten to take your medicine one day? What about women who take antibiotics, not knowing that certain antibiotics can interact (and negate) certain types of birth control? I can't blame the patient for that.

What about women who are drug addicts or alcoholics? Most of them certainly can't afford an abortion. Why shouldn't there be a stopgap for those sorts of situations?

So you think the insurance company should pay the costs of an abortion because the policy holder was negligent to take her medication as prescribed or the physician/pharmacist didn't tell her about drug interactions? Or if she chose to participate in illegal activities and can't afford the abortion the INSURANCE COMPANY should be responsible for covering an abortion?

If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she will be certain to use whatever is necessary to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It is a woman's responsibility to inform her physician she is taking BCP (if that is what she is using) and then it is the physician's responsibility to inform her that the medication being prescribed with cancel out her BCP's. There are even pharmacies (if you use the same company for everything) that have systems in place to tell the pharmacist which drugs you are prescribed may/will interact adversely with other drugs on your file.

The "stopgag" to getting pregnant is called celibacy or sterilization. No one else should have to pay for another woman to have an abortion because she got pregnant through negligence or risky behavior.

So, because YOU don't think it's a medical necessity (having never been in the situation), you think it's okay to make a blanket statement that affects 49-50% of the population?

Do you understand what a physical and emotional toll a pregnancy, even when wanted, is on a woman? Can you even fathom what it would be like to have to give birth to a child you don't want, or who was forced upon you, simply because you can't afford an abortion?

WHY do you think I've never been in the situation? You're making an assumption. Do you assume I am a man? And I am not stating what is or is not Med Nec, I am stating what insurance companies determine are medically necessary, and elective abortion is NOT considered medically necessary by insurance companies (check out your policy limits and exclusions) If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should keep her legs together. If she was sexually assaulted, she can usually request the Morning After pill which is quite affordable.

Most insurers cover birth control with a small copay of usually $10-20 for a several month prescription. Get your facts straight.

While I put myself through graduate school working for my doctorate, I worked for an insurance company as an Expert Medical Analyst (processing claims, reviewing for pre-existing and medical necessity). Not ALL of the policies covered BCP's. There are policies employers may choose from. I have worked for companies with policies that DID and did NOT cover various methods of birth control. You should check your facts and know who your audience is before telling someone to get their facts straight.

Less government oversight causes insurance companies to dump cancer patients because they "felt they should have known" they had cancer (I've seen this several times), causes them to refuse new treatments because "they feel the old therapy works well enough" (this is common), and refuse to treat children with congenital conditions because they were diagnosed prior to birth, when coverage begins.

Why does that sound like a good system to you?

This is not caused by less govt oversight, because not all insurance companies are this horrible. This is caused by unscrupulous, greedy business men with no morals who want to pad their already deep pockets w/ more lining. There are flaws in every system that need to be worked out. The company I worked for, and the companies I have been insured by, have never denied congenital conditions on children or new borns. If a new treatment is denied because it is considered 'experimental' or there is something just as effective but costs less, then I agree with the insurance company.

All of these can occur even with the best diet, best preventative measures, and an excellent exercise program. To say otherwise is absolute and complete ignorance of human biology.

I find it laughable that you are calling me ignorant of human biology considering I have taught human anatomy at a college and helped med students to study and pass USMLE steps 1 & 2. While some of the dis-eases you list are not easily (or at all) curable, the number of people with these conditions are rare compared to the vast number of people who are covered by insurance and the costs would easily be absorbed by the group premium.

As for Cancer, pneumonia and the flu? Well, I've had all three of those and them some (pneumonia chronically) and when I stopped getting the vaccines and started eating better (2 kiwi a day took care of all my viral issues, including asthma) it all went away. How we age is related to how healthy a life we live (diet, exercise & meditation). We can't stop the aging process but we can do it better.

What you've done is argue insurance companies denying medically necessary treatments with elective services. In the case of unwanted pregnancies, abortion is an elective treatment (like breast implants) and insurance companies should not be forced to pay for them. Most abortions that are medically necessary are actually planned or wanted babies. I've only seen one situation where an unwanted pregnancy became a med nec abortion because the woman needed to have surgery (in which case, I paid the claim for the abortion).

I would imagine that if one was pro-life, they would say it shouldn't be paid for by insurance while pro-choicers would say it should.

Oddly, it's been my understanding that once insurance gets involved, the cost goes up dramatically so putting it on insurance would actually prevent many from getting abortions and keeping it off would keep the cost about the same as it is now.

Either way, who cares.

Originally posted by Phlegmi
Abortion is a legal medical procedure, there is no reason why it should not be covered by insurance.

Plastic surgery is a legal medical procedure. according to your way of thinking it should be covered by insurance too.

I have the right to plastic surgery, therefore plastic surgery should be covered. Kinda sounds silly when you put it that way doesn't it.

If a woman willing spread her legs, and there is no medical reason for an abortion such as the mothers life in danger, than it is an elective procedure, just like plastic surgery.

It should totally be covered... Why shouldn't it is the reason and if you say the bible anywhere in your post, its a womans choice. Secondly if you say its a womans job or her fault may i point out rape and men who think its funny to pop holes in condoms, as a prank. A stupid one... Also Accidents happen, I am an accident Doubling up on contraceptives even fails so abortion should be covered.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
That's the nice thing about Planned Parenthood. They are more affordable. And if a woman doesn't want a child she will not wait until she actually receives restitution for her medical bills to get the abortion. If you incur medical bills as a result of sexual assault (broken arm, concusion), you CAN sue the assailant for those bills. However, because it is an injury, some health insurance companies will cover the Morning After pill (it's usually called the Supplemental Accident Benefit and may not limited to the exclusions of the policy but a set dollar amount).

That's all fine and dandy about suing the assailant, but you're still missing the point, either because you aren't thinking this through, or are being intellectually dishonest. Yes, you can sue and receive damages. However, you still have to pay for the procedure upfront while waiting for the trial and award process. Many women don't have this kind of money. Abortion, even through planned parenthood, isn't cheap, and they are becoming more and more stringent about who qualifies for a free or reduced cost.

So you think the insurance company should pay the costs of an abortion because the policy holder was negligent to take her medication as prescribed or the physician/pharmacist didn't tell her about drug interactions?

YES. Absolutely the insurance company should still pay for the procedure. No where in any insurance agreement (at least none of the policies our hospital works with, including Medicare/Medicaid) does it state that they will default on their payments if an injury, infection, or other medical cost is due to an error on your part. The contract you sign is to cover all non-elective, medically necessary procedures that are not due to a pre-existing condition.

Or if she chose to participate in illegal activities and can't afford the abortion the INSURANCE COMPANY should be responsible for covering an abortion?

YES. The insurance companies are not allowed to access social history portions of your medical record. Why would they need to know if you've used any sort of illegal drugs? As I always explain to me patients, that information is meant SOLELY to provide the most effective care necessary and stays between doctor and patient. When an insurer agrees to insure an individual, they are insuring them for ALL necessary medical costs, as indicated on your risk assessment form you fill out prior to being insured. Now, should a company be allowed to deny someone who admits to using drugs on their initial assessment form? Sure. If they are told about this upfront, they have every right not to insure that person. But to deny a claim over something they have no legal right to know?

If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she will be certain to use whatever is necessary to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It is a woman's responsibility to inform her physician she is taking BCP (if that is what she is using) and then it is the physician's responsibility to inform her that the medication being prescribed with cancel out her BCP's. There are even pharmacies (if you use the same company for everything) that have systems in place to tell the pharmacist which drugs you are prescribed may/will interact adversely with other drugs on your file.

In all of these situations, the same mantra applies: people make mistakes. Why should a woman have to suffer for a lifetime because a pharmacist didn't check for contraindications? Why should she have to suffer because she ran out of her medication and couldn't get to the pharmacy that day? Mistakes happen, and if we have a viable medical solution to them, it should be open and available under insurance. Insurers pay medical bills for people who drink and then get into car accidents. Why is this any different?

The "stopgag" to getting pregnant is called celibacy or sterilization. No one else should have to pay for another woman to have an abortion because she got pregnant through negligence or risky behavior.

Ah, yes, sterilization. The old program that disproportionately targets the poor. What a classist, elitist idea if there ever was one. Let's just promote sterilization among the "unwanted" masses.

elective abortion is NOT considered medically necessary by insurance companies (check out your policy limits and exclusions)

And there are compelling legal, ethical, and medical arguments against that, hence the reason it is going to change soon, if recent legislative efforts come to pass.

If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should keep her legs together.

Ah, right, because it is SOLELY the woman's fault! SHE must be the one to remain chaste! Let's all forget that there are TWO parties in every pregnancy and instead place all of the blame on the harlot, the whore, and the bearer of the scarlet letter.

Sexism is disgusting.

If she was sexually assaulted, she can usually request the Morning After pill which is quite affordable.

It can cost upwards of $50. Considering unwanted pregnancies are more common in lower income areas, you may want to try to get past your detachment from the lower income brackets and realize that $50 isn't "quite affordable" to a large portion of the population.

While I put myself through graduate school working for my doctorate, I worked for an insurance company as an Expert Medical Analyst (processing claims, reviewing for pre-existing and medical necessity). Not ALL of the policies covered BCP's. There are policies employers may choose from. I have worked for companies with policies that DID and did NOT cover various methods of birth control. You should check your facts and know who your audience is before telling someone to get their facts straight.

Ah, ok, so because SOME policies on SOME insurers offered by SOME employers didn't cover birth control, obviously this qualifies as "many". Nevermind the fact that the largest insurers and most common plans all cover it with a small copay, if any at all.

This is not caused by less govt oversight, because not all insurance companies are this horrible. This is caused by unscrupulous, greedy business men with no morals who want to pad their already deep pockets w/ more lining.

You just described both capitalism and every insurance company in the nation. Their whole purpose is to gain more capital, more profit, and more shareholder confidence. If the problems I listed weren't so major or so widespread, why did it make its way into federal health legislation? Which do you think is more likely: that the issues were common even in large insurers, or the federal government is targeting a few "greedy businessmen"?

There are flaws in every system that need to be worked out. The company I worked for, and the companies I have been insured by, have never denied congenital conditions on children or new borns. If a new treatment is denied because it is considered 'experimental' or there is something just as effective but costs less, then I agree with the insurance company.

"New" isn't the same as "experimental". Just last week, I wrote a prescription for antihistamines for a patient with severe atopic asthma. There is a mountain of evidence from the last five years showing that new generation antihistamines are incredibly effective in treating this specific type of asthma. However, inhaled corticosteroids are cheaper. My prescription was denied by the patient's insurer because they felt the steroids were "good enough", despite worse side effects, lower effectiveness, and a DOCTOR'S ORDER.

Why is this situation okay to you? Who do you think knows the science better, a paper pusher claims adjuster at John Doe's Insurance Group, or a physician who has seen the patient, evaluated their condition, and is up to date on current literature?

I find it laughable that you are calling me ignorant of human biology considering I have taught human anatomy at a college and helped med students to study and pass USMLE steps 1 & 2.

Human anatomy is not human biology. Sure, I would trust you with a cadaver, and I'm sure you know more of the nooks and crannies in the body than I do. However, I wouldn't trust your knowledge if presented with a patient or a complex biological issue. Anatomy doesn't translate to functional biology.

As for your involvement with the Steps, anyone can read from First Aid, to be honest.

While some of the dis-eases you list are not easily (or at all) curable, the number of people with these conditions are rare compared to the vast number of people who are covered by insurance and the costs would easily be absorbed by the group premium.

Again, not true .Incidence of IEMs

While the incidence is obviously smaller than more well known diseases, it is still nothing to sneeze at. IEMs are far more common than you think, and range from simple annoyances to severe immunocompromisation.

As for Cancer, pneumonia and the flu? Well, I've had all three of those and them some (pneumonia chronically) and when I stopped getting the vaccines and started eating better (2 kiwi a day took care of all my viral issues, including asthma) it all went away. How we age is related to how healthy a life we live (diet, exercise & meditation). We can't stop the aging process but we can do it better.

Of course certain aspects of aging are related to lifestyle. Other aspects, however, are not. There is a large genetic component to the development of rheumatoid conditions, dementia, senility, and neurodegenerative disorders.

Should those not be covered, either?

What you've done is argue insurance companies denying medically necessary treatments with elective services. In the case of unwanted pregnancies, abortion is an elective treatment (like breast implants) and insurance companies should not be forced to pay for them.

Comparing an abortion to a breast implant is one of the most disgusting, degrading statements I have ever read on here. It takes a heavy emotional toll on a woman to have an abortion. No one does it for "fun". No one does it on a whim, even if they act flippantly about it. It is an invasive experience. To compare something as life altering as this to a cosmetic procedure shows how absolutely shallow and biased you are.

Most abortions that are medically necessary are actually planned or wanted babies. I've only seen one situation where an unwanted pregnancy became a med nec abortion because the woman needed to have surgery (in which case, I paid the claim for the abortion).

So, because YOU have only seen one case, clearly it's a rare event? I've seen women who developed severe infections during pregnancy, which would only be treatable with a teratogenic drug. I've seen two women diagnosed with breast cancer early in their pregnancy, only treatable with teratogenic and fetotoxic chemotherapy/radiation. I've seen women carrying infants with confirmed anencephaly, which wouldn't be viable outside the woman but would survive the entire gestation.

Why would any of these situations not be medically necessary? They happen, and more often than you think. Just because your narrow worldview causes you to think all abortions are the result of carelessness doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by calstorm
If a woman willing spread her legs,

Well, since apparently women are able to produce an abortion simply by spreading their legs, without any willing male to assist in the act, I suppose you're right.

Oh! Wait! Every pregnant woman has a willingly involved male counterpart! I keep forgetting, since pro-lifers keep reminding me that women are whores, baby killers, and incompetent.

Originally posted by Xiamara
It should totally be covered... Why shouldn't it is the reason and if you say the bible anywhere in your post, its a womans choice. Secondly if you say its a womans job or her fault may i point out rape and men who think its funny to pop holes in condoms, as a prank. A stupid one... Also Accidents happen, I am an accident Doubling up on contraceptives even fails so abortion should be covered.

So does this mean you think all elective procedures should be covered?

Again I want to point out that I am talking only about cases where the woman willing opened her legs.

If a woman willingly has sex fully aware of the consequences, know that the condom could break birth control pills could fail, ect. than it is an elective procedure. By making an informed decision to have sex she agreed to consequences of her actions.

The Right to Abortion should be fully covered by ALL for Everyone.

Government - private insurance - - and any thing else that applies.

If you add up the difference in cost between the 50+ million abortions that have been done in the US versus the cost of 50+million births they avoided paying for then I imagine the insurance companies would be eager to cover abortion.

The US Insurance industry; saving money with murder for over 3 decades.

reply to post by calstorm


So your saying no one should have sex? good luck with that one, I highly doubt that will work. I think I'll take the risk.

The difference is between elective surgeries and abortion is just the overall cost in the end... Babies cost a lot, and if people can't afford it they take matters into their own hands and it can be nasty and cause serious damage. Not to mention there are no alternatives to abortion. Its abortion or give birth and take on a whole other set of medical concerns, which may or may not be covered.

Also who says its a woman's fault? Men are equally responsible...

I agree with Annee.

Abortion is medical care. It's not cosmetic, as some plastic surgery is.

Ten Reasons for Abortion Coverage

Excluding abortion from coverage sends us down a slippery "moral" slope. "Government policies that are based on the theory that private policyholders should not be forced to see their premiums used to cover things they consider immoral would result in a return to the days when contraception was not covered in individual plans for unmarried women and pregnancy was excluded in individual insurance plans and only covered in 'family plans,'"
...
Should people who oppose sex outside of marriage determine who gets covered for childbirth? By the same argument, we could also -- for example -- exclude coverage for HIV and AIDS if contracted through homosexual conduct." To which Katha Pollitt adds: "That many people disapprove of abortion is irrelevant. In a democracy, every citizen sees their tax dollars go for things they think are wrong."
...
"Why should abortion be covered? Because sometimes abortion is medically necessary, and the government shouldn't be writing regulations from Washington that tell a woman in Kansas when that is.

Again I want to point out that I am talking only about cases where the woman willing opened her legs.

If a woman willingly has sex fully aware of the consequences, know that the condom could break birth control pills could fail, ect. than it is an elective procedure. By making an informed decision to have sex she agreed to consequences of her actions.

How about the men who willingly had sex with those "women who willing opened their legs" foot half the bill? Why don't we make that a legal requirement? I mean, it's technically a business agreement at that point, wouldn't you say? Why do the men get off free?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Totally agree with you... Men should cover at least half. If its half theirs they can pay half. I still think it should be 60/40 since women actually go through the trauma of having an abortion all men do is thrust. But 50/50 is fair.

Originally posted by calstorm
Again I want to point out that I am talking only about cases where the woman willing opened her legs.

And who is going to decide that she willingly opened her legs? How will this be proven?

If a woman willingly has sex fully aware of the consequences, know that the condom could break birth control pills could fail, ect. than it is an elective procedure. By making an informed decision to have sex she agreed to consequences of her actions.

So, if someone willingly goes skiing, fully aware of the consequences, KNOWING that many skiers fall and break their legs, their broken leg shouldn't be covered? If you make the informed decision to go skiing, you agreed to the consequences of your actions...

Pretty silly, huh?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by calstorm
If a woman willing spread her legs,

Well, since apparently women are able to produce an abortion simply by spreading their legs, without any willing male to assist in the act, I suppose you're right.

Oh! Wait! Every pregnant woman has a willingly involved male counterpart! I keep forgetting, since pro-lifers keep reminding me that women are whores, baby killers, and incompetent.

This is not a discussion about the morality of abortion. This is a discussion of whether or not it should be covered by insurance. My stance is if the procedure is elective and not medically necessary or the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape than no it should not be.
Yes it takes two to make a baby but as the current laws stand men have no rights or responsibilities until the child is born, hence the terms woman's choice, the male choice to participate in the act that resulted in the pregnancy is not valid.
Whether a woman is a whore or not is also not apart of this debate. It makes no difference if the woman slept with every guy she came in contact with or has only had one partner in her lifetime and has been married to him for 15 years. If she made the choice to have sex it is still elective.

By the way I am a woman and my personal opinions on abortion are irrelevant to this discussion. If I allowed my opinions on abortion or allowed my emotions on the subject to override my logical thinking on the subject you would be getting a completely different answer to the topic at hand.