Insurance company is pro abortion (not prochoice)?
February 13, 2007 10:36am CST
My insurance at work recently changed a policy relating to adoption and surrogate mothers. The new policy states that they will not pay any medical coverage for the mother or unborn child for anyone who has already signed paperwork stating they are giving their baby up for adoption. Most people see this as just the insurance company wanting to avoid paying someone who should be charging someone else surrogate fees. Since the insurance company still provides their standard coverage for abortions, I see this a little different... To be completely honest, someone having an abortion is much cheaper for the insurance company compared to someone giving birth. Is it wise though for a company to make this sort of choice (to cover abortions but not mothers who decide to give up their baby via adoption)?
• United States
2 Sep 07
In my state you can not sign adoption papers before the birth- are you in the US? You could have a family chosen & be verbally committed to them before the birth, but nothing is signed until the birth & nothing is final for 60 days (it might be 90 days). I see the surrogate situation differently. The couple & the surrogate have a financial arrangement of some sort and the medical expenses should be part of that arrangement. The surrogate's insurance should not have to pay for the medical care.