Abortion: Mothers’ well being must not be ignored

Re: “Abortion: Taking a wallet is wrong, but taking a baby’s life is OK?” (TNT letter, 1/19).

Should the rights of mothers of unborn children be protected?

Maternal mortality rates in the United States more than doubled from 1987 through 2016. Is the threat of death just an “inconvenience,” as stated by the letter writer?

Shouldn’t maternity care, which protects the lives of mothers and their unborn babies, be essential? If you “strive to protect the lives unborn children,” you should also strive to protect maternity care coverage.

In their report “A Framework for Personalized Affordable Care,” the Republican Study Committee states “the RSC plan would undo the ACA’s regulations on essential health benefits...” Maternity and newborn care is one of those essential benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Notably there is only one woman on the committee.

The RSC also states “carriers should be given the flexibility to apply the continuous coverage requirements on a benefit-by-benefit basis.” This basically means let the insurance industry control how they cover preexisting conditions, including pregnancy.

Anyone saying that Republicans are going to protect those with preexisting conditions, or mothers and their unborn children, is wrong.

This story was originally published January 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM with the headline "Abortion: Mothers’ well being must not be ignored."