Desperate measures

Medicaid could reduce dangerous abortions

Kawana Ashley, a 19-year-old Florida resident, shot herself in the stomach after failing to raise enough money for an abortion. Doctors delivered her child by an emergency Cesarean section, but it died of organ failure two weeks later. Ashley was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter. Last Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court struck down both charges, ruling that a woman cannot be prosecuted for harming her fetus. While Ashley no longer fears a life behind bars, her case is a grim reminder of abortion's exclusion from the federal Medicaid program.

Passed in 1977, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from Medicaid programs' coverage. Medicaid will only cover abortions required to save a woman's life and, as of 1994, in cases of rape and incest. Congress must repeal the Hyde Amendment to offer all women their fundamental right to choose.

As the Hyde Amendment stands, millions of women are denied safe and legal abortions simply because of their low-income status. Oftentimes these women cannot raise the necessary funds for an abortion until later in the pregnancy, at which time the cost is significantly higher. Also, after eight weeks of pregnancy, the risks involved with the abortion procedure greatly increase. In Ashley's case, by the time she pulled together enough money for the procedure, she was into her second trimester and the price went up.

According to the National Abortion Rights Action League, approximately 50 percent of women who obtain abortions after 16 weeks of pregnancy are delayed by the difficulties of financing the procedure. This financial burden often proves an insurmountable obstacle for low-income women. Because of an inability to exercise the fundamental right to choose, these women often turn to back-alley or self-inflicted abortions; these unsafe alternatives greatly endanger their health. The federal government must stop putting low-income women's lives in peril.

Some proponents of the Hyde Amendment argue that public funds should not be used for a procedure that many find "immoral." But to base government's funding upon taxpayers' personal objections or moral conflicts is fundamentally skewed. The government must look at each issue from a more objective stance.

Medicaid does fund other health care practices related to pregnancy, and it funds a vast array of other surgical procedures. By excluding abortion, low-income women are singled out and discriminated against. Women who rely on the government for their health care needs are at a great disadvantage in comparison to middle-class women whose health care - most often provided by their employer - covers abortion procedures.

While Congress has taken steps to alleviate some of the unequal access to abortions by covering abortion in federal employees' health benefit plans and reversing a ruling that forbade the funding of abortions for women in federal prisons, discrimination still exists. Funding bans, such as the Hyde Amendment, place women like Kawana Ashley in a desperate position. By federally funding abortions through Medicaid, a woman's choice would no longer be limited by her wealth.

11-04-97

Previous Article Next Article

HOME| NEWS| EDITORIAL| ARTS| SPORTS| ARCHIVES|


©1997 The Michigan Daily
Letters to the editor
should be sent to:
daily.letters@umich.edu
Comments about this site
should be sent to:
online.daily@umich.edu