Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Back to you, Ken
Message-ID: <499@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 16:02:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.499
Posted: Mon Mar 25 16:02:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 20:35:57 EST
References: <3824@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1154@pyuxa.UUCP>, <3856@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 20

[..............]
>Before you flame away, I agree that abortions done for birth control reasons
>are not a good thing in this society where contraception is readily available.
>BUT, there is a real problem here....many health insurance companies (Blue
>Cross of NH for one) that will NOT cover contraception, but WILL cover
>abortion.  How come?  If I was too poor to afford $10 per month for pills,
>and thought I was doing the rhythm method right, and got pregnant, my abortion
>(if I chose to have one), would be covered.  This is just offered as an
>example, not an "excuse".

BRAVO Mikki, this is the kind of thing that I have been getting at.  As
a pro-choice person, I definately feel that the system is screwed up
when it is more economically attractive to have an abortion over using
contraception.  THIS is the sort of thing we should be fighting to
help minimize abortions.  Making abortion illegal merely sweeps it
under the rug.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd