State of Alaska proposes new regulations to pay for abortions

[Shadow]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - State health officials are refusing to answer questions about a proposal that critics fear could restrict abortions for low-income women in Alaska. Whether that would actually be the result is unclear. People on both sides of the abortion debate say it's difficult to determine what the proposed rule really means.

The state Department of Health and Social Services proposed the new regulation for "abortion payment conditions" in late June and is inviting public comment through July 30. Officials say it's not appropriate for them to discuss it until then.

At issue is coverage for abortions through Medicaid and Denali KidCare, the state-federal health insurance programs for low-income Alaskans.

The state wants to require physicians who perform abortions to certify on paper whether an abortion is medically necessary. If it's not, or doesn't meet federal criteria, the state won't pay for it.

In a written statement, deputy h ealth commissioner Kimberli Poppe-Smart said the changes are needed "to avoid payment errors" and "to verify that medical assistance funds are being used in accord with the law."

Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, which provides the majority of abortions in Alaska, says a shift in wording of what constitutes a medically necessary abortion is the biggest of several problems with the proposal.

A rule now on the books defines a medically necessary abortion as one that improves "a condition harmful to the woman's physical or psychological health." The proposed change says an abortion can be eligible for payment if "the health of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy."

The elimination of the reference to "psychological health" appears to be a significant change that could rule out abortion coverage for many women, said Clover Simon, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.


Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - State of Alaska proposes new regulations to pay for abortions

[Thunderknuckles]

I'm on the fence here. The only time where I see a valid use of the "psychological health" argument is a pregnancy resulting from rape. There may be some other examples and feel free to enlighten me on them.
Other than that, I agree with the premise of the proposal.

[Shadow]

I'm on the fence here. The only time where I see a valid use of the "psychological health" argument is a pregnancy resulting from rape. There may be some other examples and feel free to enlighten me on them.
Other than that, I agree with the premise of the proposal.

Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest would be my best guess too. Although... you can pretty much see a therapist and get a recommendation letter for anything to be considered bad for your "psychological Health" (fear...shame...stress...whatever). I'm sure people still will find ways of working around these conditions anyway...they usually do.

I think PP's big issue with this was that you have to provide all of the personal information involved as to the 'reason' for the abortion. Which then has to be passed on to the insurance provider to verify that it is not an elective procedure. I personally am all for it.