Latest Conservative Gotcha: Obamacare Subsidizes Pregnant Women

Abortion protesters line up outside the Supreme Court.Ben Schumin/Wikimedia


Opponents of abortion rights have seized on one activist’s “discovery” that the Affordable Care Act helps pregnant women pay for neonatal care to accuse the Obama administration of hypocrisy.

The argument has its roots in a questionnaire on Connecticut’s state health insurance exchange website. This questionnaire includes an optional question asking applicants whether they are pregnant. If an applicant hovers her mouse over the question, a tiny bit of text pops up explaining that “Unborn children are counted as members of [a pregnant woman’s] household, so this information helps determine if she is eligible for help with health care costs. Medicaid also has rules to help pregnant women.”

Abortion foes have cited this pop-up line of text—first noticed by Simcha Reuven, a member of the conservative group Family Institute of Connecticut Action—to argue that “counting unborn children” is inconsistent with a law that they claim uses government money to subsidize abortions. “It’s ironic that some exchanges are counting unborn children for certain purposes when the entire Obamacare law is structured to increase access to abortion,” Susan Muskett, legislative counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, told One News Now last week.

In reality, the Affordable Care Act does not subsidize abortions. (Its free contraception provision may even reduce abortions.) President Obama signed an executive order in 2010 prohibiting the Affordable Care Act from using tax dollars to pay for abortions. And the pop-up text on Connecticut’s health insurance exchange website is easily explained: Obamacare was drafted with heavy subsidies for pregnancy care in a bid to appease opponents of legal abortion. So under the law, a pregnant woman who intends to carry her pregnancy to term may qualify for substantial financial assistance for neonatal care. A pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion, won’t. To sort out women’s plans, state health care exchanges simply ask.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.