How Does Abortion Affect The Economy
Running&head:&&HEALTHCARE&ECONOMICS&
Healthcare Economics
Adedayo Saanumi, RN
University of South Alabama
1&
HEALTHCARE&ECONOMICS&
2&
Funding of Abortions
The Supreme Court judgment in Roe v. Wade, (1973) struck down the criminalization of abortion in the United States, and therefore guaranteed the right of the woman to choose legal abortion. With this landmark decision came the burden of funding for the numerous abortions that takes place in the United States yearly. Federal funding of abortions in the United States has been premised upon medical necessity and income level of the pregnant woman. Individuals pay for abortions that are not deemed legal. Because abortion rate is still significantly high, its funding has …show more content…
Following the legalization of abortion, the abortion landscape became open and a “moral hazard” (Mason,
Leavitt & Chaffee, 2012) ensued. This led to more abortion expenditures on the part of the individual and government. In the three years following the legalization of abortion, majority of the legal abortions for low-income women was borne by the government through Medicaid
(Kaiser Family Foundation, [KFF], 2009). For abortions that were funded individually, cost and safety became the main determinant factors. High-income women have been able to get abortion services paying out-of-pocket, but the poorer ones have had difficulty accessing these kinds of services, especially in situations where government funding is unavailable. Today, the federal government funds abortions only in cases of rapes, incest and life endangerment of the mother
(NAF, 2003). Beneath these abortion-funding restrictions lies the conundrum of spending limited resources to secure unlimited good. This is true in the United States healthcare industry, a sector …show more content…
South Dakota is the only state that violates this proviso, paying for abortion only when the mother’s life is endangered. Seventeen states with nonrestrictive abortion laws go above abortions prescribed by federal (NAF, 2003).
Under the joint federal-state Medicaid program, states are refunded the amount spent on abortions at the standard Medicaid reimbursement rate (GI, 2008). The federal and state government spent about $90 million in 2006 with the state government responsible for more than
99% of the amount (Sonfield, Alrich, & Gold, 2008). An overwhelming majority of these government funded abortion were in states with somewhat liberal abortion stance (Sonfield,
Alrich, & Gold, 2008). According to Kaiser Family Foundation (2010), 4.6 million of reproductive-age women in 33 states that have restrictive abortion laws are within 138% of the federal poverty line (FPL). Thus, these women will meet the eligibility criteria for Medicaid under the 2010 healthcare reform law.
Abortion will continue to be a hot-button issue given the passion it has elicited in people on both sides of the ideological divide. Whilst there is a consensus that abortion should
Healthcare Economics
Adedayo Saanumi, RN
University of South Alabama
1&
HEALTHCARE&ECONOMICS&
2&
Funding of Abortions
The Supreme Court judgment in Roe v. Wade, (1973) struck down the criminalization of abortion in the United States, and therefore guaranteed the right of the woman to choose legal abortion. With this landmark decision came the burden of funding for the numerous abortions that takes place in the United States yearly. Federal funding of abortions in the United States has been premised upon medical necessity and income level of the pregnant woman. Individuals pay for abortions that are not deemed legal. Because abortion rate is still significantly high, its funding has …show more content…
Following the legalization of abortion, the abortion landscape became open and a “moral hazard” (Mason,
Leavitt & Chaffee, 2012) ensued. This led to more abortion expenditures on the part of the individual and government. In the three years following the legalization of abortion, majority of the legal abortions for low-income women was borne by the government through Medicaid
(Kaiser Family Foundation, [KFF], 2009). For abortions that were funded individually, cost and safety became the main determinant factors. High-income women have been able to get abortion services paying out-of-pocket, but the poorer ones have had difficulty accessing these kinds of services, especially in situations where government funding is unavailable. Today, the federal government funds abortions only in cases of rapes, incest and life endangerment of the mother
(NAF, 2003). Beneath these abortion-funding restrictions lies the conundrum of spending limited resources to secure unlimited good. This is true in the United States healthcare industry, a sector …show more content…
South Dakota is the only state that violates this proviso, paying for abortion only when the mother’s life is endangered. Seventeen states with nonrestrictive abortion laws go above abortions prescribed by federal (NAF, 2003).
Under the joint federal-state Medicaid program, states are refunded the amount spent on abortions at the standard Medicaid reimbursement rate (GI, 2008). The federal and state government spent about $90 million in 2006 with the state government responsible for more than
99% of the amount (Sonfield, Alrich, & Gold, 2008). An overwhelming majority of these government funded abortion were in states with somewhat liberal abortion stance (Sonfield,
Alrich, & Gold, 2008). According to Kaiser Family Foundation (2010), 4.6 million of reproductive-age women in 33 states that have restrictive abortion laws are within 138% of the federal poverty line (FPL). Thus, these women will meet the eligibility criteria for Medicaid under the 2010 healthcare reform law.
Abortion will continue to be a hot-button issue given the passion it has elicited in people on both sides of the ideological divide. Whilst there is a consensus that abortion should