Health Insurance and Abortion

Guess this is a cross topic thread...

My wife and I just realized something today.

Should she get pregnant now or anytime in the near future we would be forced to choose between abortion and financial ruin. Why? Because she has no health insurance and is a type 2 diabetic. A diabetic woman's uterus (or cervix)is unable to dilate and a C-section is almost always needed. Furthermore, most diabetic women, even type 2's, need to go on insulin during the length of the pregnancy.

I think that the estimated costs of putting a diabetic through the 9 months and beyond typically exceeds $60,000.00.

I suppose that the pro-lifers would say that this is not a choice at all. If it is financial ruin then so be it.

The pro-choicers would say that by making it financially untenable to have a child without health insurance, you effectively divest women of the right to choose...to choose either life or abortion. The choice is pretty much made for them...I dunno. I could accept arguments there.

Just an FYI: We were unable to afford my company's group plan and private insurance has rejected both her and my 11 year old son for preexisting conditions.

I'm not entirely sure I know where I'm going with this, but I thought that it might be food for thought...

It is inexcusable that anyone would be put in this position.

doesn't dilate. They do, same as any other. Diabetic women may have larger babies and be more likely to deliver via c-section, but there's no correlation between diabetes and inability to dilate. It's important to find a doctor who understands that being a diabetic and/or a larger sized woman doesn't automatically mean you need a c-section. These days doctors like doing them for a variety of reasons and will suggest one at the drop of a hat. Oh, and carefully monitoring diet and exercise can eliminate the need to use insulin during pregnancy also.

I had my son two years ago and all told my (controlled diabetic) pregnancy, labor and delivery, including 3 days of induction and a c-section were under $20,000. Of course, that's negotiated costs via insurance coverage but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near $60,000.

I agree though that real choice would be more likely with universal health care.

My son is from my wife's previous relationship. He (I adopted him and hate the whole "stepson" nomenclature) is 11 now and I'm positive that they had to C-Section her because of the diabetes. The doctors were U.S. air force doctors at an airbase in Germany and they had to put her on insulin because of her condition.

My wife is in excellent health and she always has been. She does yoga every day and is a vegan (she was a vegetarian in those days). She's slim, trim and has been that way for 15 years. She's even been an amateur body-builder and personal trainer in the recent past.

I'm not sure which one of us is correct, but we clearly have had different experiences.

I know that when she was in the delivery room they had to do the C-section because she simply wouldn't dilate and the doctors very clearly attributed it to the diabetes. *shrug*

because they earn more for doing them, they can be scheduled- no middle of the night deliveries, and because doctors can control the birthing process that way and are less likely to be surprised by a complication. The risks to women are greater, though, and not enough women are given the chance to do what their bodies are made to do. C-sections are ideal for doctors, but not for women.

It may have been the policy to schedule a c-section for a diabetic woman but medically there's no reason to do so on an otherwise healthy, complication-free pregnancy. Just typical CYA medicine.

No, I'm not a doctor or a nurse, just a well-educated woman who's experienced two pregnancies with diabetic complications in both. I've done tons of research on the subject of pregnancy and childbirth because the subject fascinates me. :)

edited to add...

Back to your OP, though I agree that we really need universal health coverage. The real concern for the anti-choice folks though is not for the pweshus baybees, but that women might actually be in control over their own reproductive process. This is why they also oppose birth control. It's about enforcing a moral idea that men are in charge of everything and women should do as they're told, which is why they (also counter-intuitively) oppose birth control.

Many thanks!

can cost up to 3-4 times more for someone without insurance.

f*cked up, innit?

Since Bush loves fetuses but not air breathing people, a woman can get care until the baby comes out, that was my impression. After that it's a big "fuck you" of course, I think even if there are complications for the woman after the birth. But if that's more likely with a diabetic pregnancy then you're still screwed.