Page 1 of 15

Why Utah is making men pay women's pregnancy costs

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:27 pm
by Neu California
I'm not sure if this belongs in the abortion thread or not. It's in a weird area to me.

The BBC wrote:Fathers in Utah are now legally obliged to pay half the cost of a mother's medical care related to pregnancy and delivery.

Supporters of the law - which is thought to be the first of its kind in the US - say it will help alleviate the financial burden of motherhood for American women.

The legislation passed with bipartisan support - but it raises questions about the cost of parenting in the US, as well as the state's growing roster of anti-abortion legislation.

What does the law say?
Utah's Shared Medical Costs law requires biological fathers to pay half of a mother's insurance premiums - her monthly health insurance costs - during pregnancy as well as all other related medical fees, including the birth of the child.

For US women with insurance, giving birth costs an average of $4,500 (£3,254) out of pocket, according to a study in the Health Affairs journal that tracked costs from 2008 - 2015.

For those without coverage, this figure could more than double: the not-for-profit Fair Health organisation reported the average as closer to $10,000.

If paternity of the child is in question, fathers are able to delay payments until paternity is proven.

The payment process is not automatic. Similar to child support, if a woman does not seek assistance, the father will not be notified.

What's going on with US abortion rights?
Why do so many US women die giving birth?
The same financial obligation does not apply if a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Biological fathers will not be required to contribute to the cost of an abortion if it is sought without their consent, except in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

The cost of an abortion, without insurance, is roughly $1,000 (£722) according to Planned Parenthood.

The law, which will take effect on 5 May, passed unanimously with bipartisan support in the state's Senate but faced Democratic opposition in the House of Representatives.

Why was it introduced?
One of the bill's sponsors, state Congressman Brady Brammer, has said that he wanted a bill that was "actually pro-life" following a spate of anti-abortion bills introduced in the state.

"You can support pregnant moms and new babies and it doesn't have to be about abortion," Mr Brammer, an anti-abortion Republican, told the BBC.

Since joining the legislature in 2019, Mr Brammer has seen a number of abortion bills introduced. Each time, "they're contentious and they're emotional", he said. But at the "core" of the issue, "there's someone in a really tough position in life, making a real tough decision in life".

"Perhaps we could make that situation a little bit easier," he said.

Many pro-choice activists reject the claim that an abortion is an act of desperation, often made by someone who is, as Mr Brammer described, "scared, alone and poor".

In the US, 24% of women will have an abortion by the time they turn 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute - a research organisation in favour of abortion access. But of these women, nearly half live below the federal poverty line.

What is the criticism?
Pro-choice advocates and women's groups have said they support efforts to lessen the costs of pregnancy and childcare.

But this law is not the best approach, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Katrina Barker told NBC News.

"Expanded Medicaid [low-income health scheme], better insurance coverage, equitable access to reproductive health care, and paid family leave are just a few ways policy makers could do much more", Ms Baker said.

And the pregnancy assistance will do little to alleviate the financial burden of having a child in the US.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, families will spend an average of $233,610 raising a child born in 2015 - a figure that does not include the cost of college.

Despite Mr Brammer's insistence that the new legislation can "support life" without being about abortion, it has still stirred up existing controversy about abortion access in Utah.

For some anti-abortion activists in his state, it is part of a legal web they hope will further restrict abortion access.

"We very much consider this a pro-life bill," Merrilee Boyack, chairwoman of Abortion-Free Utah, told the BBC. Ms Boyack has previously said her organisation's goal is to make abortion "unthinkable".

"I think a whole range of laws in this arena are going to be needed to be effective in supporting a culture of life," Ms Boyack said.

Republicans in the state, including Mr Brammer, have made it increasingly difficult to seek an abortion in Utah.

In 2019, they passed a proposal to ban elective abortions 18 weeks after conception. Women seeking an abortion before that time must receive in-person counselling regarding their pregnancy, which includes information that could discourage them from an abortion, and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided.

And last year, Utah lawmakers passed a so-called "trigger ban" that would bar nearly all abortions if the 1973 Supreme Court decision that first legalised abortion across the country were ever overturned.


Now I know this will draw out the usual suspects, but this makes perfect sense to me personally. Having a baby is expensive, and having a father who contributes nothing to that process, either through helping pay medical bills or paying child support is just ridiculous to me (which is the same reason I'm opposed to paper abortions. A woman aborts, no one pays to take care of the dead fetus, whereas if she doesn't it shouldn't be on her alone to take care of the baby while the father is allowed to wander off without any responsibility). It's also nice to see someone actually trying to make pro-life about more than abortions and make it opt in, just in case.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:00 pm
by Cetacea
Yeah its entirely fucked up that women in the US have to pay anything at all to give birth, but since the US medical system is so stupid then I like the idea of both parents having to contribute to the health of their child.

I’d be happier if medical care for new babies was free (Ok, provided by the state)

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:50 pm
by Punished UMN
It makes it more fair but the system should have universal coverage and the price-fixing power of hospitals and doctors should be broken.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:58 pm
by -SARS-
This law sounds kind of meh, but it is refreshing to see this:
"You can support pregnant moms and new babies and it doesn't have to be about abortion," Mr Brammer, an anti-abortion Republican, told the BBC.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:44 am
by The New California Republic
If there was UHC then this shit wouldn't be happening in the first place.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:02 am
by Neutraligon
I am...not sure what I think about this. My initial reaction was it is better than nothing, but then I wondered about men who do not want to be a father while the mother is unwilling to have an abortion.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:04 am
by Miku the Based
Neu California wrote:
The BBC wrote:Fathers in Utah are now legally obliged to pay half the cost of a mother's medical care related to pregnancy and delivery.

Supporters of the law - which is thought to be the first of its kind in the US - say it will help alleviate the financial burden of motherhood for American women.

The legislation passed with bipartisan support - but it raises questions about the cost of parenting in the US, as well as the state's growing roster of anti-abortion legislation.

What does the law say?
Utah's Shared Medical Costs law requires biological fathers to pay half of a mother's insurance premiums - her monthly health insurance costs - during pregnancy as well as all other related medical fees, including the birth of the child.

For US women with insurance, giving birth costs an average of $4,500 (£3,254) out of pocket, according to a study in the Health Affairs journal that tracked costs from 2008 - 2015.

For those without coverage, this figure could more than double: the not-for-profit Fair Health organisation reported the average as closer to $10,000.

If paternity of the child is in question, fathers are able to delay payments until paternity is proven.

The payment process is not automatic. Similar to child support, if a woman does not seek assistance, the father will not be notified....
--snip--

Makes sense to me, but I still don't understand how less then 9 months of being in a bed with a ekm, brought food, and electricity and AC somehow cost 10 grand. Must be big pharma's fault. Both parents should bare the consequences of thier actions and at least pay for the child wether it be through generalized taxes to subsidize the Maternity ward and rasing the child through foster home or directly.
Abortion is really irrelevant here, news like to put out partisan yellow papers like this and I suggest not reading news.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:31 am
by Neutraligon
Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:I am...not sure what I think about this. My initial reaction was it is better than nothing, but then I wondered about men who do not want to be a father while the mother is unwilling to have an abortion.


And didn't use a condom because "it's like taking a shower with a raincoat on" or perhaps their partner never said "I'm 100% certain I didn't miss my pill".

Hmm. Well they're pretty much screwed aren't they? They're taking the consequences of something that just happened, just the way anti-abortionists demand pregnant women do. Except it's less: half the money rather than all the money plus health consequences.

If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:52 am
by Ethel mermania
It is an interesting idea. Provides support for the mother and is a positive alternative to abortion.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:54 am
by Odreria
That's the job of the state.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:06 am
by The Free Joy State
Hmm... well providing financial support for the woman (at first glance) seems like... something. However, throwing the expense onto the man (who also may not have the money for this kind of expense) seems like a poor alternative.

Women are already at an increased risk of domestic violence in pregnancy, and forcing some men to pay for the upkeep of unwanted pregnancies seems like it might increase that risk.

Also, as men do not have to fund if the woman aborts... this raises the question of what happens if the pregnant woman plans to keep the pregnancy but then (due to medical emergency) requires an abortion -- will she be forced to provide a refund for the medical care she received?

In addition, if a woman chooses abortion due to economic hardship, she has probably factored in longer-term expenses and difficulties than just those 40 weeks of her pregnancy.

This really seems like a small, rather ineffective sticking-plaster.

Really, it would be better all-'round if the government funded this. Or just brought in free universal healthcare... Or, all those things that the representative of Planned Parenthood suggested.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:22 am
by Borderlands of Rojava
Honestly it makes sense. It takes two people to make a baby fr.

The government could just provide poor families the money tho. This seems like Utah put a bandaid on a bullethole.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:27 am
by Unstoppable Empire of Doom
This should have already been a thing.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:54 am
by Ifreann
Two people can probably manage the costs of pregnancy related healthcare more easily than one. But you know, I bet that even more people could manage the costs even more easily. Maybe you could even cut out the insurance provider middlemen.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:17 am
by Neutraligon
Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).


There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

That would be nice but is not happening any time soon.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:29 am
by The Reformed American Republic
Makes sense, though things like this should not be paid out of pocket.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:35 am
by Anagonia
I support this, growing up from my background. If you helped create the life, you dang well better take responsibility for it - if you're even aware of it.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:50 am
by Genivaria
Wow American politicians are absolutely desperate to find anything other than instituting a proper healthcare system.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:10 am
by The Republic of Fore
Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).


There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:11 am
by Punished UMN
Neutraligon wrote:
Fillygreed wrote:
And didn't use a condom because "it's like taking a shower with a raincoat on" or perhaps their partner never said "I'm 100% certain I didn't miss my pill".

Hmm. Well they're pretty much screwed aren't they? They're taking the consequences of something that just happened, just the way anti-abortionists demand pregnant women do. Except it's less: half the money rather than all the money plus health consequences.

If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).

Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:16 am
by Ifreann
The Republic of Fore wrote:
Fillygreed wrote:
There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

That would be fine if and only if the welfare of the child in question was guaranteed, regardless of your personal contribution towards that welfare. But that would entail things like healthcare and education being free at the point of access.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:17 am
by The Republic of Fore
Punished UMN wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).

Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:18 am
by The Republic of Fore
Ifreann wrote:
The Republic of Fore wrote:Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

That would be fine if and only if the welfare of the child in question was guaranteed, regardless of your personal contribution towards that welfare. But that would entail things like healthcare and education being free at the point of access.

Or it would entail things like her being responsible for the child she wanted. Can't afford to support a child? Too bad, CPS will take them away and give them to someone who can.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:19 am
by Punished UMN
The Republic of Fore wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

I don't think it is as much a double standard as you think it is, but I also do apply the same argument to those situations. But there is not in fact a right to "walk away", there are social duties which are universally accepted, and among those is to care for one's children.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 am
by Ifreann
The Republic of Fore wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

Giving a child up for adoption involves arranging for someone else to take care of the child. Not really the same as just disclaiming any responsibility.