Roundup: Health Care “Essential” For Pregnant Women, Except When It’s “Elective”


It’s become a given fact that the ability to have access to quality health care is not only necessary for nearly everyone, but, thanks to recent congressional efforts, should be a high priority for our country.  And few people are as needy of such access as women who are pregnant, who are responsible for not just their own health, but the health of their future children.  So why are pregnant women the part of health care coverage that both agencies and politicians seem to want to provide cuts to or abandon all together?

Market Press Release discusses how important coverage is for maternity care in today’s society, calling it an “essential:”

Acquiring Pregnant Women Insurance during this time has become harder as health insurance price hike in the United States. The health association of America evaluates that approximately fourth one million Americans do not have essential health coverage and nearly thirteen percent of pregnant women have no pregnant woman insurance. This is needlessly placing both the mother and the child at risk.

Fetal care is generally extremely costly. In addition to that, maternity care and hospital care can charge in excess ten thousand dollars. The charges may desperately hike if complication emanate, like premature birth or cesarean sections. Analyzing these truths, it is compassionately suggested that all expecting mothers receive some sort of health insurance.

Sadly, that just isn’t a priority in the states, where, when pregnant women are too poor to acquire their own insurance, they have to turn to a government that is more interested in cutting costs than ensuring a woman or baby’s health. 

In Nebraska, where the governor eliminated a traditional medicaid coverage plan for poor or immigrant women who are pregnant, a restraining order to continue to provide care to these women has been denied.  Via News Channel 4:

The Nebraska Appleseed Center says a Lancaster County District judge denied the non-profit’s request for a temporary restraining order to restore eligibility for prenatal care to some 1,500 low-income pregnant women.

The request for the restraining order was made as part of a class-action lawsuit filed by the center against Nebraska state government officials this year.

The suit alleges the state acted outside its authority when it ending the two-decade-old program that provided Medicaid coverage for unborn children.

When compared to the Nebraska fight over prenatal care, the Utah debate over removing “elective” procedures like epidurals and some c-sections from Medicaid seems much less harsh.  But it’s the attitudes of the legislators involved that comes shining through, as you can see from this quote published in KSL.com:

[Liljenquist] thinks officials should look at eliminating Medicaid coverage for what he calls “optional” procedures, such as elective C-sections and epidurals.

“My starting point is, if it’s elective, and it’s an elective C-section, is that something we should be doing?” Liljenquist said. “When there’s higher risks for the baby, and it’s twice as expensive, and it’s for convenience for the patient to have an elected cesarean.”

The attitude that exudes from the quote is that poor people do not deserve “comforts.”  If you are going to give birth on the “government dime” then at least do it as cheaply as possible, regardless of what extra pain, health issues or inconveniences you may suffer as a result.

No wonder it’s become so essential for pregnant women to find healthcare.  To be without leaves you in the hands of legislators who will make all of your medical decisions for you, in the name of “saving the state some money.”

Mini Roundup: Are you googling for abortion facts?  Odds are, you’re in a state with less access.

Aug 25

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • nycprochoicemd

    This post isn’t going to attract the anti-abortion activists that frequent this site.  Why do you think people generally readily accept the need for coverage of prenatal care that will lead to a live birth, but are adamantly against covering prenatal care that does not lead to a live birth (abortion)?  I think it’s an explicit message to women that our value is in our procreative abilities.

  • crowepps

    I think the explicit message is that any health care provided isn’t for the woman at all but rather for the benefit of the fetus.  The woman becomes disposable as soon as she ‘dirties herself’ by having sex.

  • goatini

    that we are livestock.  

     

    Breeding stock that ain’t worth breeding, ain’t worth feeding.  Money shouldn’t be wasted on their health care. 

  • equalist

    I think it sends a clear message that even the health of the fetus isn’t as important to the anti choice crowd as the idea that the woman remains pregnant once she becomes tainted by sex.  It just further proves that idea that has been peeking its ugly head out with cuts to programs to support needy families and children.  None of it is about the lives of the babies they’re trying so hard to “protect”, it’s all about punishing women for the primary function of some of their body parts.