Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood announced it was closing its only clinic in Wyoming and three of its clinics in New Mexico.
Even better news!
Republican lawmakers in Iowa agreed last legislative session to give up millions of dollars in federal Medicaid money in order to create a state-run family planning program that excludes clinics affiliated with abortion services or referrals.
I like it! Putting FAMILIES first not baby murder first.
As long as the baby is still in the woman's body, GOPers are pro-life. After that they are anti-life, with policies that are anti-family, anti-child, anti-woman. But for God's sake, let more babies be born so we can take away their food stamps.
We happen to have good insurance and the bills for our kids were about $350 each in pregnancy care/hospital fees. Since I didn't know what other people pay, I looked it up and one result is "On average, U.S. hospital deliveries cost $3,500 per stay, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Add in prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare, and you're looking at an $8,802 tab, according to a Thomson Healthcare study for March of Dimes." What to Expect: Hospital Birth Costs
With these estimates, it's about 4x as much on average to adopt a kid vs. birth it. That's a lot to ask for people to have up front on top of having savings/means to take care of the child after they adopt it. No wonder more can't afford it.
Could we not look into ways to make the process cheaper/more efficient (not bare bones, not even the same as a birth, just cheaper) and not think that not being able to adopt as it is means you can't afford a kid? This would also help out kids who are already born and out there....
I agree with the rest. Choice means choice. Trying to qualify when/if people should abort, keep or adopt removes true choice.
If you're paying for someone else's pregnancy, the quality of your health insurance doesn't have any bearing. The actual medical cost would be based on the pregnant person's insurance. Though, as an aside, the hospital bill for when I had my daughter... was WAY more than $3,500. But to be fair, I literally almost died. So that was a factor.
The link you gave broke down the cost into where it went and much of it seems to be in agency fees. I'd be curious to know how many hours the average case worker puts into each parent portfolio. Because between interviews, background checks, home visits, etc, etc, etc... I would not be surprised if a case worker spent 200 hours per file. Then you have any/all attorneys involved.
Then there's the fact that you don't have to go through a private adoption agency in order to adopt a child. Personally? I'd love to look into ways to make private adoption cheaper... but I think we should first lower the number of children who are in foster care and how long they are there.
Eeiiittther way. I'm about as pro-choice as one can be. Until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, abortion for any reason is fine with me. If she wants to give birth, that's fine with me. Though, just as an aside, unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as rape), adoption should only be done if the biological father is also on board. If he's not, then he should be allowed custody.
Two parents wishing to give their family member away happens after a birth, not while still pregnant which is why adoption has nothing to do with an unintended pregnancy. As an aside, after the birth, when parents change their mind, adoption agencies actually have procedures in place for "Change Of Heart". When adoption becomes predatory to poor families and to potential adopters, so agencies can make alot of money, there is corruptness. Further, tax paying citizens cannot get their birth certificates without great effort and cost because they were adopted. The bottom line is children who need homes is what adoption is for. It is not possible for a pregnant woman because a birth has to occur.
Two parents wishing to give their family member away happens after a birth, not while still pregnant which is why adoption has nothing to do with an unintended pregnancy. As an aside, after the birth, when parents change their mind, adoption agencies actually have procedures in place for "Change Of Heart". When adoption becomes predatory to poor families and to potential adopters, so agencies can make alot of money, there is corruptness. Further, tax paying citizens cannot get their birth certificates without great effort and cost because they were adopted. The bottom line is children who need homes is what adoption is for. It is not possible for a pregnant woman because a birth has to occur.
Are you getting hung up on this goalpost you have created? That it can't be an option presented because the birth hasn't officially happened? We must never say it's a possibility for the end result of an unintended pregnancy (especially, let's say, when it happened through no choice of their own) until there is an actual birth, and just wait and see if the parents then decide to do it? (Never mind that under this other idea, they may think the only choices are abort or keep). We can't try things like going after predatory companies or agencies, making it easier for those tax paying citizens to get their birth certificates, etc....any ways to make the adoption process more feasible for children of all stages and status?
Also, to someone who would be anti-abortion for reasons like thinking life begins at birth, they're often considering it a family member before it's born. You may not, but people do.
It's certainly an...interesting way to handle the situation. Frankly, I hope it never comes to pass, as your idea removes some choice, period.
Why should PP go through all those gyrations to divorce their businesses that perform abortion, to satisfy some vindictive congressmen that are taking it out on poor women.
They should be focusing on why we have one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates of any industrialized nation, or focus on the deplorable foster care system. Instead of that they want to pull healthcare from poor women, explain the logic of what exactly that accomplishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Except that Planned Parenthood is being singled out by the feds. Is every other organization in the country that provides abortions in addition to women's reproductive care also losing the ability to bill Medicaid or losing Title X finding?
I did a little research, please fill in what I am not understanding/what I am missing...
From what I do understand, the IFPN (Iowa's Family Planning Network Waiver) was initiated in 2006. This is the program that is being cancelled, but replaced/renamed with a state program.
Quote:
[the waiver] which allows people who don’t qualify for Medicaid to receive coverage for things like contraception, pelvic exams, pap tests, and STD testing.
I read through the bill repealing the IFPN. PDF form & did not have an index...so on page 124 out of 135 (of course):
Quote:
1. The department of human services shall discontinue the
Medicaid family planning network waiver effective July 1, 2017,
and shall instead establish a state family planning services
program. The state program shall replicate the eligibility
requirements and other provisions included in the Medicaid
family planning network waiver as approved by the centers for
Medicare and Medicaid services of the United States department
of health and human services in effect on June 30, 2017.
House File 653, p. 124
2. Distribution of family planning services program funds
under this section shall be made in a manner that continues
access to family planning services.
3. Distribution of family planning services program funds
shall not be made to any entity that performs abortions or that
maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.
For the purposes of this section, “abortion” does not include
any of the following:
a. The treatment of a woman for a physical disorder,
physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician,
place the woman in danger of death.
b. The treatment of a woman for a spontaneous abortion, commonly known as a miscarriage, when not all of the products of human conception are expelled.
4. Family planning services program funds distributed in accordance with this section shall not be used for direct or indirect costs, including but not limited to administrative costs or expenses, overhead, employee salaries, rent, and telephone and other utility costs, related to providing abortions as specified in subsection 3.
Anyone who qualifies for the "new" Iowa state "family planning program", formerly known as the IFPN Waiver, won't be able to go to ANY clinic that provides abortions for any medical service? Not just PP, so PP isn't being singled out?
BUT if the mother's health is in danger due to a pregnancy (or is having a miscarriage), she can use the new state FPS (old IFPN Waiver) to have an abortion or early induction to abort the baby/fetus at a PP or a clinic that will provide the service?
If the four PP centers that are closing in Iowa service 14,600 folks collectively (3,650 avg. per each one of the 4 PPs) and only 3% of those need abortion services (according to PP's averages), which would total 109 women getting abortions at each of those 4 PPs per year...how do you close down for 109 people - that 3%? What about the other 3,541women/men/etc., who don't go to PP for annual abortions?
You could up it to 10% of the "business" is "abortion services"....360-ish depend on PP for abortion services outside of the ones that are medically necessary. What about the other 3,000+ PP patients?
They aren't worth figuring out how to stay in business?
Tell me what I'm missing b/c I'm sure I'm missing something - it just doesn't make sense why PP in Iowa wouldn't figure out how to restructure? To protect both their patients who need their health care & those who want a non-medically necessary abortion?
Last edited by Informed Info; 06-02-2017 at 12:44 AM..
Are you getting hung up on this goalpost you have created? That it can't be an option presented because the birth hasn't officially happened? We must never say it's a possibility for the end result of an unintended pregnancy (especially, let's say, when it happened through no choice of their own) until there is an actual birth, and just wait and see if the parents then decide to do it? (Never mind that under this other idea, they may think the only choices are abort or keep). We can't try things like going after predatory companies or agencies, making it easier for those tax paying citizens to get their birth certificates, etc....any ways to make the adoption process more feasible for children of all stages and status?
Also, to someone who would be anti-abortion for reasons like thinking life begins at birth, they're often considering it a family member before it's born. You may not, but people do.
It's certainly an...interesting way to handle the situation. Frankly, I hope it never comes to pass, as your idea removes some choice, period.
We are actually in agreement. One either aborts or continues their pregnancy, according to their beliefs.
We are actually in agreement. One either aborts or continues their pregnancy, according to their beliefs.
While beliefs play a role in the choice, many other factors are involved. People make the choice based on their personal situations, the risks and costs involved, and their long-term goals. I've known several women who were opposed to abortion based on their religious beliefs, but when they or their daughters had an unexpected pregnancy, they were willing to set aside their religious beliefs in consideration of other factors.
We are actually in agreement. One either aborts or continues their pregnancy, according to their beliefs.
But you have the twist that you can't mention adoption....eh, after today's comment thread in a different forum where it was the extreme opposite and someone thought that everyone under 30 (approx) should get an abortion no matter what and another said eugenics was a good theory...I think I need a breather from abortion talk. What a loaded complicated topic.
Access to birth control? That's not what Planned Parenthood is about and you know it.
A condom can be purchased for under a dollar. You can buy them at most gas stations.
A 30 day supply of birth control pills can be purchased at both Walmart and Target for 9 dollars.
There is no problem with access to birth control.
LOL really. Sorry, but you can't get birth control without a script. Good grief, why are some of you so dumb on this. It's really scary. I bet you voted for Trump
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
