twitter facebook stumble upon rss

What It Costs to End a Life-Threatening Pregnancy

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

Joe Davidson for the Washington Post: D.J. Feldman was 11 weeks pregnant last year when she learned that her child had anencephaly, a fetal defect that left the baby with almost no brain. It is always fatal.

stupak ammendement

Feldman, a 41-year-old federal lawyer, and her husband had been trying for two years to have a baby. Sadly, her doctor "made it very clear I wasn't to continue this pregnancy," she said.

An abortion was medically necessary. She had little choice.

But after the jolt of the diagnosis and the emotional pain of the procedure, Feldman was in for another shock -- sticker shock. She thought her health insurance policy through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) would cover the $9,000 cost of the abortion. It didn't.

For Feldman, unlike many women who have abortion insurance coverage through private-sector employers, abortion coverage provided through her employer -- the U.S. government -- is illegal. The law says that "no funds . . . shall be available to pay for an abortion" under FEHBP. Exceptions are made for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest, or that endanger the mother's life.

Feldman's case is instructive. Congress is considering a ban, like the one in federal employee health plans, against federal funding of abortions as part of the effort to reform the nation's porous health insurance system. After hot debate last month, the House approved the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which would prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized health insurance, with exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's health.

Feldman's health was in jeopardy. The minority of babies with anencephaly that are carried to term -- dying shortly after birth -- cause complications such as "dysfunctional labor and postpartum hemorrhage, which can increase the risk for the mother," Feldman's doctor wrote in a letter to her insurance company.

The doctor warned that the complications for a woman of Feldman's maternal age from giving birth to a child with anencephaly "are especially serious . . . and could be life threatening."

Despite the doctor's plea, the Office of Personnel Management refused to make Blue Cross/Blue Shield pay.

"The fetal anomaly presented no medical danger to you, the mother," OPM wrote to Feldman. "Consequently, we cannot direct the [insurance] Plan to provide benefits for the services in dispute."

Feldman was able to negotiate the fee down from the $8,898 she was billed as an individual, to the $5,000 the Blues would have paid. Federal and insurance company officials do not discuss individual cases.

For privacy reasons, Feldman, who lives in the D.C. area, doesn't want her full name or agency printed. She has lobbied against the Stupak amendment and the law that places restrictions on the health coverage of federal employees. Those restrictions also apply to others who use federally funded health programs, including poor women on Medicaid, patients in military hospitals and Native Americans who use the Indian Health Service. Federal law even prohibits the D.C government from using its local funds for abortions, though the House has voted to lift that ban.

"People don't want their tax dollars to pay for abortion," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said in an interview, citing a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that 61 percent of those surveyed support a ban against using public subsidies for abortion coverage. "Many pro-choice members [of Congress] support no tax dollars for abortion," he added.

Stupak said that individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion policies. But that coverage isn't always available. The Government Employees Health Association, better known as GEHA, for example, doesn't sell supplemental abortion policies.

With Democrats running the White House and Congress, abortion rights advocates thought that now would be the time to change the law. "This has been the first time in eight years to have the punishing restrictions removed from federal employees," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

She and others are encouraged because the ban has not been included in a Senate appropriations bill, though it remains in similar House legislation.

"Abortion is basic health care for women, and federal employees should have coverage," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

But the Stupak amendment has been a blow to abortion rights forces. It's a clear signal that the House, at least, is in no mood to mess with the bans against federal funding.

Nonetheless, "I'm hopeful it will be changed," Feldman said.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Read more stories moms are talking about.



next: Iraq Soldier's Mom Sues Over Letter Stamped 'Deceased'
10 comments so far | Post a comment now
chris December 1, 2009, 1:15 PM

Abortion is NOT basic health care for women and I don’t want to pay for anyone to get one! And guess what, I am a democrat and this is one reason I’m against this so called reform health bill.

Dawn December 1, 2009, 2:44 PM

I am a Democrat. I am also pro-life. I’m against paying for an abortion. Don’t force my hand in the murder of an innocent and helpless child!

Anonymous December 1, 2009, 2:50 PM

As another fellow Democrat, I wish the party would stop lumping us all together and assuming that we all are okay with abortion. I am not.

ag December 1, 2009, 2:52 PM

I’m pro-life as well…For all the innocents murdered in war!!!! I do NOT want my tax dollars paying for that yet I don’t get to have a say in it. It’s legal as is abortion.

MarMar December 1, 2009, 3:38 PM

For all who have already commented - What would you have done in Feldman’s case?

chris December 1, 2009, 3:50 PM

It doesn’t matter what I would have done in that situation…what matters is I would have paid for it if I chose to do it. I didn’t say I was against abortion, I said I was against paying for it for other people. What her insuarance covers is between her and her insurance company - just leave me and my money out of it.

lindatart December 2, 2009, 2:25 PM

Is it anyone’s business if a woman wants to get a abortion or not? I believe that is a decision that is between a woman and her doctor. What do you people have to do with it? I do not want my money paying for a war that I do not support but it is paying for it. If you do not believe in abortion than do not get one however, if a person wants one, do not stand in their way.

Anonymous December 3, 2009, 3:57 AM

If a woman wants one, I won’t stand in her way but I certainly don’t want to pay for it. I also don’t want to pay for men to get vigara (which insurance does cover - stupidly) and I don’t want to pay for the war or for my neighbor who bought a house they can’t afford or for my friends who overextended their credit cards. I don’t like paying for a lot of things that I have to through taxes or higher credit card interest because people don’t want to be responsible for their own actions. It’s a total shame that we live in a society where people just don’t want to be accountable and sit back and wait for the government to bail them out for everything.

heartbroken April 30, 2010, 2:11 PM

I am against abortion. My unborn chid has been diagnosed with anencepaly with no chance of survival. Multiple doctor’s recommend early birth as medically necessary. I am insured and whatever is medically necessary should be covered. It is not a decision plsnned to make, but if I don’t have it it will be a risk on my life, too. It is different when you have to deal with it yourself,and either option is unexplainably painful to us.

wholesale nba jerseys February 15, 2011, 4:20 PM

My sis instructed me about your website and the way great it is. She抯 right, I抦 actually impressed with the writing and slick design. It seems to me you抮e just scratching the surface in terms of what you possibly can accomplish, however you抮e off to an amazing begin!


Back to top >>
advertisement