Back in the 1980's, the MA Supreme Judicial Court (henceforth "MA SJC") ruled that no government healthcare subsidy for the poor could exclude "medically necessary" abortions. As with SCOTUS, the MA court later deemed abortions for "mental health" reasons as medically necessary, which in effect means an abortion for any reason has to be covered by any state government healthcare program.
As a result, Medicaid in Massachusetts must cover abortions. This was true before Romney came into power, and it did not change with his healthcare plan. Women on medicade always did and continue to get abortions in Massachusetts. Romney didn't change this.
Now part of Romney's new healthcare plan was to provide a sliding subsidy to purchase PRIVATE health insurance for people who are too rich to qualify for medicade but to poor (within 300% of the poverty line) to afford insurance on their own. After the plan was signed into law, the state insurance commission, because of the past SJC decision mentioned above, determined that all subsidized health insurance plans had to include abortion coverage.
So it is true that after Romney's healthcare plan went into effect, a small number of women who previously did not have access to subsidized abortions now have it. But this number is quite small: it's limited to those who have incomes less than 31,000 of the poverty line and who don't qualify for medicade. I ran the numbers and it comes to something like 2% of the female population in the state. So yes, after the healthcare plan passed, the number of women eligible subsidized abortions increased, but by very, very little.
Some Freepers have presented this as if every woman in Massachusetts has access to $50 abortions. This is simply not true. Again, the program only applies to that very small number of women who make less than $31,000 per year but who are also too rich to qualify for medicade.
And, BTW, it's not as if the taxpayers pick up all the the rest of the tab for the abortion. The health insurance premiums are subsidized, but not completely. Someone making 31,000 is going to be paying over half of the premium. Someone making $20,000 will obviously be paying less.
Now consider this. The subsidized insurance plan requires a copay of $50. An abortion typically costs around $200. So a woman who qualifies for this subsidy is going to save $150 on her abortion. Do you really think $150 is going to make or break a woman's decision of whether to have an abortion? Remember, we're talking about women making around $25,000-$31,000 per year. Considering the huge costs associated with having a child, $150 is peanuts, even for someone at that low income level. Hence I seriously doubt this subsidy is going to cause any abortions that wouldn't have happened anyway.
Finally, this provision is NOT in the legislation Romney signed. It was later added by the state insurance commission in order to comply with the past SJC decision.
"$50 abortions" makes for a nice soundbite, but it really amounts to very little in terms of substance.
Another thing I really don't get: Thompson was openly pro-abortion when ran for Senate the first time. Why don't we hear anyone accusing him of flip-flopping?
Oh well, the primary is over, and I seriously doubt Mitt even wants to Veep spot. So really all of this is a big waste of time. Have a nice weekend!
I appreciate your work on the question.
I do hope Mitt stays active...his talents are incredible, I hope he doesn't fade from the marketplace. :)
RD