Is that because only one percent of abortions involve rape/incest/health? Or because the states with the narrower exception make it more difficult in some way (intentionally, indirectly) to obtain abortions even when those abortions fit within the exception?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Guttmacher did a study that showed the 98 percent of abortions in America were "elective," as opposed to rape/incest/health-related. Can anyone confirm that statistic?

And whenever possible, they should take advantage of this access. For the sake of our country.

What? What's the matter? What did I say? I'm agreeing with you!

Actually, Frankie, you're not far off: The consequences of a poor woman being forced to carry a child to term are far graver for herself and for society at large, as is the price tag for society (about the only message some Republicans understand). Think about family size, and even global population, like a wedding. There're only so many resources to go around, and each "guest" requires their meal, housing, minimum material possessions and so forth. The more guests there are, the fewer resources one has to spend on each guest, even taking into account economies of scale, until you get down to each guest receiving zero favors, entertainment, maybe cake and nonalcoholic punch, while the wedding environment has gone from an upscale site to a VFW hall sans decorations or even seating. Any wedding planner will tell you, the most effective way to have a nicer wedding for all guests is to invite fewer to the party. A poor woman's budget can only stretch so far, the more children the state foists on her by denying her alternatives, such as birth control, the less money she has for education in the family, including her own. Without an education, she has little chance of getting herself a better job with the bigger budget to go along with it, meaning she stays on the state dole much longer with her ever embiggening brood. This, by the way, is a matter of home economics the cliched high school drop out homemaker has all sewn up.

First, about the Guttmacher study you seem to remember. Let me say right away that "elective" is an imprecise word that researchers really don't use to distinguish one abortion from another. In the example you suggest, just to illustrate rape/incest abortions are "elective;" some women in those circumstances might freely choose NOT to have an abortion.

But the study you may have been thinking of is one in which Guttmacher found that the top two reasons women had an abortion were: (1) having a child would interfere with her education, work, or ability to care for dependents (74%), and (2) she could not afford to have a baby at the time. (73%) The study appears here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf.

About the 1% question (referencing the statement in my post: "In states with coverage only in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment, Medicaid covers less than 1 percent [of abortions]"), according to NNAF, it is not because only one percent of abortions involve rape, incest, or life endangerment. In 2001, Guttmacher found that the 32 states plus DC that are supposed to offer Medicaid coverage in these exception cases in reality covered only 81 abortions. (That's 81 abortions, not 81%, which is probably less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions performed in those states.)

Okay, so why are so few covered? Reasons obviously vary from state to state, but they are said to include the following: (1) Medicaid officials assert that they do not cover abortion, either because they don't understand the rape/incest exception or because they don't believe in assisting women and girls with abortion, period. (2) The burdensome paperwork requirements -- on the part of the woman, the police, and doctors -- can hold up payment 'til it's too late. (3) The reimbursement from the state to abortion providers is so low that clinics may choose not to go through the complicated -- and rarely successful -- process of seeking coverage. (Source: NNAF.)

Bonus reading: "The Myth of the Rape Exception," by NNAF Exec. Dir. Stephanie Poggi. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=615981. Poggi writes: "What happens today when a woman or girl who has been sexually assaulted seeks Medicaid funding for abortion in one of the many states that pay only in the case of rape/incest or life endangerment? The reality is that she is almost always denied coverage for the abortion." (By the way, Poggi now notes that the figure in the aritcle of 9,100 abortions attributed to rape/incest pregnancies may be low. I'm not sure why.)

Hope that helps. Thanks for your question.

for those links. That is the study I was thinking of, and the other article was also helpful. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. I recognize that "elective" is an imprecise word (hence the scare quotes), since all abortions except those that are *medically* necessary are elective. Is there a better word to distinguish abortions resulting from rape/incest/health concerns from abortions resulting from other factors? Given that so much of our public discussion of abortion involves that distinction, some vocabulary might be nice.

You and I and the KKK all agree on the same thing, that poor (which also means more often than not minority) women should have far fewer, if any, kids? Is the fact that we agree, but for different reasons, mean anything? Just wondering. Kind of puts everyone in a "let's change the subject" mood.