More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Cecile Richards

Cecile Richards

Posted: April 8, 2010 12:26 PM

What a difference a couple weeks make. Since the historic health care bill became law, the conversation has slowly begun to change. Sure, some people, especially my friends, are still focused on the politics of health care, and some folks, not my friends, are mostly trying to stop reform at the state level. But many people I talk to in my travels are asking a more practical question: How does the health care law affect women?

While the 2,000-plus page bill is now becoming the focus of new regulations and guidelines, the answer to the question about women is simple. Despite unacceptable and onerous restrictions on private health insurance coverage for abortion, this new law represents the greatest single legislative advance for women's health care since Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law nearly 45 years ago. The new law increases access, broadens coverage, and eases the burden on women, who still earn less than men but have higher health costs.

Let's look at a few specifics of how the law will make a huge difference in women's lives:

Basic reproductive health care when you need it: Right now, more than 17 million women are in need of family planning but can't afford it. This law addresses that need by extending either private health insurance or Medicaid coverage to millions of women who currently don't have it. New rules will dramatically increase access to reproductive health services, including family planning and contraception. The law also ensures that millions of women with modest incomes will benefit from free or very low -cost, lifesaving screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

No more unfair billing: Right now, women are routinely charged higher premiums than men. Well, insurance companies won't be able to do that anymore. This law prohibits insurers from charging women more than they charge men for a comprehensive private health insurance plan.

No more "pre-existing" conditions: Right now, women are commonly denied private health insurance because of "pre-existing" conditions such as breast cancer and pregnancy. This new law is making that go away, too. It specifically forbids insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" conditions.

Health insurance for millions who need it: Between 2014 and 2019, 32 million Americans, many of them women with modest incomes, will go from being uninsured to insured. The new health insurance will cover regular exams and preventive care from community health centers, including Planned Parenthood health centers.

But the abortion provision is not good: While we won a huge victory by keeping the Stupak abortion ban out of the bill, which would have resulted in a near total ban of private health insurance coverage for abortion, we ended up instead with other severe restrictions on private health insurance coverage for abortion. The restrictions must be overturned before they go into effect in 2014.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that this law is a momentous step in the right direction for American women and their families. But we must do more to fix its abortion provisions, while we make sure the law is implemented to women's benefit. And high on our list must be electing even more pro-choice members of the Senate and House. Until we do so, the law won't be what it should when it comes to abortion and health care coverage. For America's women, we must do more, we can do more, and we will do more.


Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

 

Follow Cecile Richards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cecilerichards

 
 
  • Comments
  • 40
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:05 PM on 04/10/2010
It is good to see Planned Parenthood go beyond the choice/right to life issues and see what is good is in the bill. Women have disproportionally cut out of the insurance market because of preexisting conditions or because they have been rescinded. The challenge is whether that remain to be the case, the reform and all: http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/reuters_is_excellent_in_diggin.php
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/
A huge historic moment, but too much still needs to be done.
photo
Ametista
Biologist and unrepentant leftist
10:23 AM on 04/09/2010
If you are too old to get it up it means your genes are WAY past their expiration date.
09:17 PM on 04/08/2010
I sit the fence on abortion rights. I'd never get an abortion. I'm a proud Christian, and that goes against my personal mental compass. But I don't think that, just because I'd never do it, that other people shouldn't. I mean, all of the babies are going to heaven anyway, since they're still pure and haven't ever sinned against God. So it's not like any souls were lost in the long run.

I think the main focus should be on people alive NOW. After all, orphanages and foster homes would be full to bursting, and the children that could have been spared a life of torment will be forced to stick with potentially abusive and frustrated parents. Or, women could go to get illegal and unsafe abortions that put both lives at risk. Of course, there's a chance that NONE of this would happen, but.... *shrug*.

It sounds like Republicans are trying to make something that's a very complex issue into a simple one. "All Pro-choicers are baby-killers, and they're all going to burn in the eternal lakes forever and ever, amen. If we banned abortion, Jesus would love America again and smite all of the commies and fascists. And we'll all live happily ever after."

But it's not a simple issue. I think we should regulate abortions sensibly. It shouldn't be taxed in any case where there is rape, incest, or potentially dangerous to the mother, but late-term mothers cannot get the procedure at all.
photo
Ametista
Biologist and unrepentant leftist
10:10 PM on 04/08/2010
Do your homework. Most late term abortions are done because the fetus is seriously malformed (as in spine developing outside the body) or its killing the mother. Slippery slope when you start dictating when the fetus must be carried to term. And, are you willing to adopt and pay for the rearing of a spina bifita, fetal alcohol syndrome, or crack baby? Are you?
08:25 PM on 04/08/2010
Why does Planned Parenthood have total disregard for women not yet born? That is just so anti-life to me. I wish they would change that.
05:38 PM on 04/08/2010
What's in it for unborn women is what you should be asking. Planned Parenthood only harms women and isn't "health care"; it's the destruction of health.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TraceyES
05:53 PM on 04/08/2010
"Planned Parenthood only harms women." Yeah...damn them for giving women low-cost health evaluations, birth control, Pap smears and breast exams. This kind of comprehensive health care for women is a liberal plot! It must be stopped!
05:59 PM on 04/08/2010
Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who wanted to eliminate blacks and other "undesirables" from society. She's been quoted widely as being racist and I think that any minority that works for or visits Planned Parenthood are suckers.

They are doing exactly what Sanger would have wanted.
04:41 PM on 04/08/2010
Perhaps one day, women's rights will receive equal protection under the constitution. Southern states are still not ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment.

Can you imagine if we tried to pass a law that said men who masturbated will be jailed for murdering potential lives? Or tried to pass a law outlawing viagra? How about a law that would tax men to cover for all the deadbeat dads?

Yet, fanatic busybodies try to pass laws that would interfere in women's most important health care decisions, implying that a woman's judgement of her situation is inadequate. I blame organized religions for this, mired as they are in stale, repugnant fantasy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darcdante
03:54 PM on 04/08/2010
What the heck does "family planning" mean? Getting your tubes tied?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
05:24 PM on 04/08/2010
It means planning to have your kids, instead of having them by accident.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darcdante
06:14 PM on 04/08/2010
So like...artificial insemination?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TraceyES
05:54 PM on 04/08/2010
Birth control. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darcdante
06:14 PM on 04/08/2010
It's difficult to understand because the author implies otherwise.

"New rules will dramatically increase access to reproductive health services, including family planning and contraception"

If family planning = contraception, then her statement is redundant. Maybe it's just bad writing, but I don't think so.
03:19 PM on 04/08/2010
Here here! I guess SOME people are just more moral than others and of course there are always the "takers" who give little back except rhetoric. Respect is a two way street, but then again SOME people haven't learned that yet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SureThang
Keeper of the Dream...
02:49 PM on 04/08/2010
I wish there was a way that we could take the issue of abortion completely out of politics. American women need to rise up and declare this issue too personal and serious for any politician to use as a tool to win an election.
photo
Ametista
Biologist and unrepentant leftist
07:17 PM on 04/08/2010
Except some of the women have been brainwashed by their churches to believe their only purpose in life is as an incubator. They will never stand up. Look how many women vote republican, about a third of them. Of course most of them are well past child-bearing age and therefore "safe".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:32 PM on 04/08/2010
Sorry, but I don't believe that one's position about abortion has anything to do with being "safe." It has everything to do with your personal values, what is at your core. I, for one, am a 30 y/o woman, a DEMOCRAT, personally PRO-LIFE, but prefer to leave abortion out of politics. My husband is pro-choice, very liberal democrat, chomsky/Zinn follower. So, who is the "safe" one? based upon your logic, our respective views about abortion should be?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darcdante
12:51 AM on 04/09/2010
That's a pretty bigoted view of women. Have been brainwashed by churches? What churches are these? I've never been to a church that espoused such ideology, and I've never met a woman who thinks that way. You're creating caricatures, and I'm not evne sure many such people exist. About a third of women vote Republican, so they must be brainwashed? Yeah, the only reason anyone would ever vote GOP is due to brainwashing.
02:48 PM on 04/08/2010
Since men live so many fewer years than women, what's in it for men to even that out a bit?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
04:25 PM on 04/08/2010
Starting at age 50, women live about 3 years longer. Before that age, women live longer because they don't die as much in wars, auto accidents, on the job.

Most of the difference is because women smoke less, but it's about equal now and the life expectancies are evening out, the difference is less.

And people who work don't live as long, but now as many women as men work.

The most interesting research finding: short people live longer than tall people! That explains most of the advantage woman have: on the average, they are shorter.

In any case, it's not a big difference. At age 50, women expect to live to 85, men to 82.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TraceyES
05:55 PM on 04/08/2010
Women exercise more, are less likely to be overweight, smoke less, drink less and eat more vegetables than men. The power of long life is in your hands. We can't force you to stop eating Twinkies on the couch.
07:08 PM on 04/08/2010
Can you please state the studies that show women are less likely to be overweight or eat more vegetables, smoke less, and drink less? I really don't think twinkie consumption on couches is higher in men than women. Since women living longer than men is worldwide, not just the USA, it would seem none of those reasons would be valid. I believe stress from work and wars are more likely reasons for men living a shorter period of time. but now that women have bought into the falacy of value through their job, and being in war zones maybe it will equal out all by itself. My Mom was 11 years older than my Dad, but only died 2 years before he did.
02:25 PM on 04/08/2010
i don't care if a women gets an abortion. but i feel in the new world of everyone must be tolerant of others i repect the right of those who are against abortion and not wanting the government footing the bill.
02:44 PM on 04/08/2010
I didn't want to fight the war in Iraq -- can I get a refund?
02:47 PM on 04/08/2010
I'm against war, yet I foot the bill. I pay for the schools of others and will have no children. I have no car, yet pay for freeways. The government isn't a cafeteria where you get to pick what you pay for and what you don't. I respect those who feel a blastocyst is a person, and I'd think they were immoral for not defending that lump of flesh's rights to personhood, if that truly is their belief. But no, the government does not cater to the wishes of each group's beliefs.
photo
Ametista
Biologist and unrepentant leftist
07:21 PM on 04/08/2010
I would love to hold up a sign with pictures of frog, chick, and human blastocysts on it. How many of these anti abortion people could pick out the "person"? Well odds are a third of them would get it, but no more than that.