Some States use of their Own Funds to Pay for Abortions for Women on Medicaid
It is noticed that about much of women who would get a Medicaid-funded abortion if given the choice are instead forced to carry their pregnancy to term when state laws restrict Medicaid funding for abortion, due to the cost of abortion to pay for theabortion procedurethemselves. The US is one of the biggest supporters of family planning programmes of entire world, but previous president George W Bush barren funds forabortion services. Many powerful anti-abortion groups in the US have disapproved of the stimulating of the ban. The subject ofabortion rateremains controversial in the US by saying that women have a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics that offerabortion servicesin other countries. Recently the President of US Mr. Obama has signed an executive order lifting the restrictions on Friday. Now no longer will health care providers be required to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they offer to women, perhapsabortion ratewill go down. Each year US almost spends more than $400 million on overseas family planning assistance.
The amount for abortion the Hyde Amendment permits federal funding only in the case of rape, incest or life endangerment. However, Congress has allowed legislation fundamentally banning coverage of abortion for those women who have medical insurance is offered by the federal government, like any federal employees, military personnel, women in federal prisons and low-income residents who cannot affordabortion fees. Any how theabortion rateid much high.
According to the rule Medicaid is for only for poorest Americans. For takingcost for abortionfrom the government women must have an income below the very low eligibility ceiling set by her state. This average indicates the annual income of $11,160, or roughly $930 per month for a family of three. Almost four in 10 poor women of reproductive age can be considered under Medicaid. Majority of these women are either pregnant or already a parent, as childless adults are normally not entitled at any income.
Sometime poor women cannot afford the doctor and cliniccosts for abortion. However, many poor women take several days between making the decision to have an abortion and actually obtaining one. Moreover, other research shows that poor women who are able to raise the cost for an abortion often do surrender to themselves and their families. Such types of women are forced to divert money meant for rent, utility bills, food or clothing for themselves and their children.
Over the course of two decades looking at a number of states concluded that 18–35% of women who had an abortion continued their pregnancies after Medicaid funding was cut off. Perhaps thisabortion rateis much high. The researchers accomplished that about one-third of women who had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when theabortion fundwas unavailable. According to a 2009 report by the Guttmacher's Institute and Ibis Reproductive Health, based on an extensive review of the literature, approximately one in four women who would obtain a Medicaid-funded abortion if given the option instead have to continue their pregnancy.
Several studies have demonstrated the negative impact that Hyde Amendment restrictions can have on poor women facing an unwanted pregnancy because they have no cost ofabortion procedure. The edition FY 2010 appropriations bill allows the District to pay for medically necessary abortions using local funds because it is important for the health of the poor who cannot afford thesafe abortion proceduredue to high cost of abortion procedure. Rather than trying to reduce women's recourse to abortion through coercive measures, U.S. policy even as it guarantees access to those women who need an abortion should avoided the unintended pregnancy and follow the family planning services.
It is to be hoped that Maine's campaign will be successful, and that it will be the first step in an accelerating, albeit undeniably uphill, campaign on behalf of the nation's poor women and a critical component of their overall reproductive health and rights.
