Pro-Life...High Cost of Childbirth/Delivery

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

randomuser

Guest
Why isn’t there a concerted effort in the pro-life movement to make childbirth more affordable for all mothers? Please don’t accuse me of being ignorant – please don’t accuse me of parroting ‘pro-abortion’/pro-murder talking points. The fact of the matter is, abortions are more affordable than a big-screen TV whereas you practically need a second and third mortgage to pay for a baby to be delivered. Why are abortions more affordable than deliveries? That’s seriously messed up. Why has it never been a major priority for pro-life groups to work with hospitals and doctors and insurance companies to secure a much lower cost to deliver a baby once the mother does choose life?

Because I will be inevitably be accusing of being ignorant and naive, I am providing support for my claim. Here’s National Right to Life’s Legislation page:

nrlc.org/takeaction/

Nothing about the high cost of childbirth.

Here’s what March For Life (the march that just happened) has to say about it:

marchforlife.org/education/

Nothing about the high cost of childbirth.

To its credit, American Life League does state two of its objectives are:

** Coordinate with our churches and other local groups to maximize support for efforts that recognize the personhood of the child in the womb.
  • Work to establish social policies that nurture the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society. Our focus must include an international social policy through which America supports the rights of families and the sanctity of the procreative act within marriage.*
all.org/get-involved/pro-life-objectives/

However, the only major pro-life organization that seems to recognize the obscene cost of childcare delivery is Feminists for Life:

“FFL was the only pro-life and feminist group to actively champion the New York state model program to help working poor pregnant women receive prenatal care through the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under both President Clinton and President George W. Bush. SCHIP was successfully implemented under President Bush through a regulation allowing states to expand prenatal care and labor and delivery services to unborn children whose mothers were uninsured but not eligible for Medicaid. In 2009 President Obama signed the CHIP Reauthorization Act into law, expanding SCHIP coverage for the first time to pregnant women, as FFL originally advocated.”

and

“FFL released “Raising Kids on a Shoestring,” our holistic national guide filled with free and frugal resources, smart and creative solutions, and practical support that pregnant women, expectant fathers, parents, and their children deserve. (2009) “Raising Kids on a Shoestring” featured eighteen articles with links to additional resources and support covering pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum care; adoption information for both prospective adoptive parents and birthmothers; help for parents of children with special needs; housing, feeding, and clothing a family economically; and many other essentials. In 2010 it was made available online, the first time The American Feminist appeared in full color. By 2015 the number of resources and topics had expanded exponentially, so rather than a magazine, “Raising Kids on a Shoestring” became a website, www.kidsonashoestring.com.”

feministsforlife.org/accomplishments/

Why don’t more pro-life groups follow Feminists For Life’s lead to have the high cost of childbirth be part of what of means to be pro-life? It’s like all the legislation is focused on stopping abortion and none of the legislation is focused on securing accessible childbirth options for the mothers who do choose life. Why not? Isn’t the high cost of childbirth an important part of being pro-life? :confused:
 
Because our dignity as humans is not contingent on the size of our parents wallet.

If people followed the Gospels and shared what they are blessed with, everyone would have enough, and greed wouldn’t factor in. You have to have patients to begin with to over-charge them, right?
The fact remains, the Pro-Life movement is about getting people the right to be BORN. Period.

There are plenty of activists for healthcare reform. Join in with them.
 
I would suspect that the majority of US births are funded by Medicaid/SCHIP or some other government program. For those with regular insurance, I know that the deductibles and copays under ACA/Obamacare can be killers. This is something to talk about from a pro-family perspective.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
I would suspect that the majority of US births are funded by Medicaid/SCHIP or some other government program. For those with regular insurance, I know that the deductibles and copays under ACA/Obamacare can be killers. This is something to talk about from a pro-family perspective.
Click to expand...
Yes true, But we’ve got to get it illegal to abort first. That’s the front line of Pro-Lifers.
Social Justice issues naturally follow though, I agree.
 
I am going to quote myself from the other pro-life thread:
pensmama87 said:
My hospital birth alone cost $25,000 (and it was an uncomplicated vaginal delivery). My birth center births cost $10,000 each, and that included all my prenatal care and testing.
Click to expand...
That was what was billed to our insurance. We paid $600ish in copays for my hospital birth, and $10 each for the birth center births.

Now, I did get Pitocin and an epidural at the hospital. And I stayed a day longer there than at the birth center (though I got a next day home visit from a nurse). But the services were almost identical (for a low risk pregnancy and delivery.) It wasn’t like giving birth in a barn.

I happen to prefer the non-hospital experience as well, but it’s just something I have noticed with regards to expense.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
I would suspect that the majority of US births are funded by Medicaid/SCHIP or some other government program. For those with regular insurance, I know that the deductibles and copays under ACA/Obamacare can be killers. This is something to talk about from a pro-family perspective.
Click to expand...
Very good guess.

“About half the births in the United States are paid for by Medicaid — a figure higher than previous estimates — and the numbers could increase as the state-federal health insurance program expands under the Affordable Care Act, according to a study released Tuesday.”

khn.org/news/nearly-half-of-u-s-births-are-covered-by-medicaid-study-finds/
 
I’m not a healthcare expert, but I’ve read a number of articles over the last few years and I’m a personal finance geek, and one thing to bear in mind is the impact of federal rule-making on hospital prices.

As I recall, hospitals and health care providers are obligated to give federal programs their lowest prices. If the Medicaid price for something was $1,000 and the hospital charged a patient only $500, the hospital would be in hot water for that with the feds. I expect that’s what we have to thank for the current situation, in which cash patients get bills with LOTS of zeroes and then the hospital billing office will cut it down or forgive it if the patient is unable to pay. It makes sense from the hospital’s point of view, but it makes for a hair-raising situation for the patient and patient’s family, as US medical bills are so unpredictable.

(Some of this may be different now that we are under ACA, but this was how it worked for many years.)

I was once involved (as a friend) with the care of a foreign patient who spent a couple days in a US ICU (coming through the ER) and racked up $10k in hospital bills. The hospital wrote the whole thing off after we provided documentation of her and her family’s income.

US healthcare financing can be very weird, but the federal government bears a lot of responsibility for the weirdness.
 
Also, I don’t have personal experience of this, but I have heard that it is possible to pre-negotiate labor and delivery costs if you are uninsured:

healthinsurance-help.com/maternity-costs.html

Dave Ramsey (the personal finance guy) often suggests doing some price-shopping for labor and delivery before choosing a hospital.

I have a lot of questions about this (what if there’s some big, catastrophic event? will they still stick with the deal?), but this does seem to be an option.
 
Induced abortion is a form of delivery, where the child who is delivered has been intentionally killed.

Doctors able to deliver a small, dead baby f or cheaper than they can deliver a live full-term baby. The doctors and their malpractice insurance companies aren’t especially worried about being sued if they baby is born dead during an abortion because that’s what they are trying to make happen. If women who had abortions started winning millions of dollars from malpractice lawsuits for “pain and suffering” following their abortion, the cost of abortion would increase. If abortion clinics had to meet the safety standards of other health care facilities, the cost of abortion would increase.

When a woman wants her baby, the doctors take extra precautions to deliver a healthy child. That requires several extra expenses, (some of which are mostly performed to avoid lawsuits.) Plus, typically, the live newborn baby stays in the hospital for a few days, which costs substantially more than throwing him or her in a medical waste pile.

Costs of overnight stays in the hospital for mothers following delivery are high because hospital costs are high. If women who had abortions stayed in the hospital overnight for observation, the costs of abortion would be higher. Instead, abortion is done as an outpatient procedure in clinics that may not even be regularly inspected to meet the minimum of sanitation standards.

Those are just a few reasons that I can think of off hand.
 
gardenswithkids said:
Induced abortion is a form of delivery, where the child who is delivered has been intentionally killed.

Doctors able to deliver a small, dead baby f or cheaper than they can deliver a live full-term baby. The doctors and their malpractice insurance companies aren’t especially worried about being sued if they baby is born dead during an abortion because that’s what they are trying to make happen. If women who had abortions started winning millions of dollars from malpractice lawsuits for “pain and suffering” following their abortion, the cost of abortion would increase. If abortion clinics had to meet the safety standards of other health care facilities, the cost of abortion would increase.

When a woman wants her baby, the doctors take extra precautions to deliver a healthy child. That requires several extra expenses, (some of which are mostly performed to avoid lawsuits.) Plus, typically, the live newborn baby stays in the hospital for a few days, which costs substantially more than throwing him or her in a medical waste pile.

Costs of overnight stays in the hospital for mothers following delivery are high because hospital costs are high. If women who had abortions stayed in the hospital overnight for observation, the costs of abortion would be higher. Instead, abortion is done as an outpatient procedure in clinics that may not even be regularly inspected to meet the minimum of sanitation standards.

Those are just a few reasons that I can think of off hand.
Click to expand...
While grisly, those are very good points.

Abortion clinics don’t run NICUs–that cuts costs.

Also, even if there is severe malpractice (like with Kermit Gosselin), women who are abortion patients are unlikely to complain publicly or sue. That also keeps costs down.
 
All the above are great points. I suspect the motivation for abortion is not often economic.
It is more of a matter of presumed “inconvenience”
 
jaimeleglise said:
All the above are great points. I suspect the motivation for abortion is not often economic.
It is more of a matter of presumed “inconvenience”
Click to expand...
Or, they may well be economic, but childbirth and delivery costs are virtually never mentioned as motivations.
 
randomuser said:
Why isn’t there a concerted effort in the pro-life movement to make childbirth more affordable for all mothers? Please don’t accuse me of being ignorant – please don’t accuse me of parroting ‘pro-abortion’/pro-murder talking points. The fact of the matter is, abortions are more affordable than a big-screen TV whereas you practically need a second and third mortgage to pay for a baby to be delivered. Why are abortions more affordable than deliveries? That’s seriously messed up. Why has it never been a major priority for pro-life groups to work with hospitals and doctors and insurance companies to secure a much lower cost to deliver a baby once the mother does choose life?

Because I will be inevitably be accusing of being ignorant and naive, I am providing support for my claim. Here’s National Right to Life’s Legislation page:
…

Why don’t more pro-life groups follow Feminists For Life’s lead to have the high cost of childbirth be part of what of means to be pro-life? It’s like all the legislation is focused on stopping abortion and none of the legislation is focused on securing accessible childbirth options for the mothers who do choose life. Why not? Isn’t the high cost of childbirth an important part of being pro-life? :confused:
Click to expand...
This is a priority in the Pro-Life community.

The Pro-Life message has simply been distorted and warped to make it us all appear to be angry misogynists.

Many are advocating that federal funding be diverted to organizations willing and able to provide affordable pre-natal, delivery, and early infant care. These voices are drowned out by the media and others accusing “pro-lifers” of wanting to deny women health care.

Abortion has so thoroughly corrupted our culture, that the simple love and care for mother and child is suspect.
 
I have heard occasionally of uninsured middle class families doing homebirth as a money saver.
 
jaimeleglise said:
All the above are great points. I suspect the motivation for abortion is not often economic.
It is more of a matter of presumed “inconvenience”
Click to expand...
This article goes into this a bit.

An excerpt:
We expected that abortion would be rare. What we didn’t realize was that, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone *around *the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.
Click to expand...
Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.
Click to expand...
A woman who had had an abortion told me, “Everyone around me was saying they would ‘be there for me’ if I had the abortion, but no one said they’d ‘be there for me’ if I had the baby.”
Click to expand...
 
gardenswithkids said:
Induced abortion is a form of delivery, where the child who is delivered has been intentionally killed.

Doctors able to deliver a small, dead baby f or cheaper than they can deliver a live full-term baby. The doctors and their malpractice insurance companies aren’t especially worried about being sued if they baby is born dead during an abortion because that’s what they are trying to make happen. If women who had abortions started winning millions of dollars from malpractice lawsuits for “pain and suffering” following their abortion, the cost of abortion would increase. If abortion clinics had to meet the safety standards of other health care facilities, the cost of abortion would increase.

When a woman wants her baby, the doctors take extra precautions to deliver a healthy child. That requires several extra expenses, (some of which are mostly performed to avoid lawsuits.) Plus, typically, the live newborn baby stays in the hospital for a few days, which costs substantially more than throwing him or her in a medical waste pile.

Costs of overnight stays in the hospital for mothers following delivery are high because hospital costs are high. If women who had abortions stayed in the hospital overnight for observation, the costs of abortion would be higher. Instead, abortion is done as an outpatient procedure in clinics that may not even be regularly inspected to meet the minimum of sanitation standards.

Those are just a few reasons that I can think of off hand.
Click to expand...
Well said. Sad Sad Sad but true.

Mary.
 
What can we do on an on going basis to help women who choose to keep their baby?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top