As politicians battle it out across party lines, there’s an important base of constituents that are taking a lot of the hits: women. In fact, “it’s becoming obvious that just having a female reproductive system is a pre-existing condition in the healthcare debate,” writes Wisconsin-based reporter Ellen Goodman.

Goodman is referring to several issues that have recently come to light, such as tighter restrictions on abortion (a measure that was recently defeated in the Senate Finance Committee), or the debate over comprehensive maternal care. Indeed, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that only 18 states have a requirement for such coverage, (the number falls to 14 when applied to individual insurance markets) while the numbers of plans without or adding expensive policy riders continues to rise.

However, it gets worse. If a woman purchases a policy after she becomes pregnant, the fetus is often considered a “pre-existing” condition, thereby excluding provision of care. The rationale? Pregnancy is “optional.” More appalling is the fact that many insurers consider having had a C-section an equally compelling reason to deny coverage, or to flag charts so that the ability to purchase a policy elsewhere becomes almost impossible.

Are our reproductive systems the only thing under attack? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The gender bias extends far beyond the aisle and into the realm of what is supposed to be a safe haven: the home. In the District of Columbia and eight other states (Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming), having a history of domestic violence is also considered a pre-existing condition, and has been used as a factor when deciding whether or not to provide or extend coverage. Here, insurers have claimed that battered women are more prone to having medical or psychiatric issues that will raise costs. In these cases, these women are victimized not once, but twice: first by their abusers and then by insurers who are unwilling to take the risk.

So, what’s the answer? If you believe the argument of Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who, speaking directly about maternity care stated that “I don’t need maternity care and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive,” then you are sitting on the wrong side of the aisle. This isn’t a reproductive issue; it’s a human one.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 at 7:00 am and is filed under Health Reform, Insurance, Women's Health. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.