Misleading Attacks on Women's Health

It was only a matter of time before the right-wing campaign against health care reform began to focus on abortion, and last week the Family Research Council pulled out all the stops. The FRC is up with an "Harry and Louise" lookalike ad in key Senate states alleging that health care reform won't cover surgery for seniors (really??) but will pay for abortions provided by Planned Parenthood. News to us all -- but again, the Family Research Council has never been known to let the facts get in the way of good, old-fashioned hysteria.

The truth is that the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life folks don't want health care reform of any kind, and are now using the idea of expanding access to reproductive health care as their latest target. These are the same folks who come from the Grover Norquist "get [the government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" school, which opposes any program that would help American families -- from school lunch programs to expanding health care access for kids.

The simple fact is that most women with private insurance in America already have access to full reproductive health care, and the vast majority of employment-based health plans treat abortion coverage like the rest of health care -- as a covered benefit. Understandably, the vast majority of Americans believe that women shouldn't be worse off as a result of health care reform. In fact, a recent poll conducted by the Mellman Group on behalf of the National Women's Law Center found that American voters would oppose a plan that does not include access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care -- because voters want health care decisions to be made by medical experts, not by members of Congress, and certainly not by the Family Research Council.

Women in America have the most to gain and also the most to lose from health care reform. After all, women are the largest providers of health care, users of health care, and purchasers of health care, and women make the majority of the health care decisions for their families. Public opinion research has shown repeatedly that a major concern of women voters is that they could be left worse off after health care reform, by losing access to either care or to their provider of choice. That's pretty much the goal of the Family Research Council and other anti-choice leaders.

Abortion should be treated like every other issue -- in other words, insurance companies operating in the proposed health care Exchange should be neither mandated to cover abortion nor prohibited -- let the free market allow companies to determine their benefit package, rather than politicize heath care.

But, as usual, the far right wants government out of our lives except when they don't -- and when it comes to women and their families having the right to make their own health care decisions, with their doctors, or their insurance companies, the Family Research Council would rather be the deciders. Women's health care has always been a favorite target, and these days are no exception. In fact, many on the right don't want women to even have access to birth control.

So here are some basic facts to know as the health care debates and misinformation campaigns heat up:

1. Myth: Taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the public plan.

Reality: Opponents of reproductive health care are trying to make you think that the public plan is a government-funded health plan like Medicaid or Medicare -- it is not. The public health insurance plan in the Exchange would operate like any private insurance plan would. Therefore, there is no reason to treat any coverage issue, including abortion coverage, differently in the public health insurance plan than in private plans in the Exchange.

2. Myth: Health care reform would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Reality: Currently, the majority of plans already cover basic reproductive health care, including abortion care. A Guttmacher Institute survey found that 86.5 percent of employment-based health plans cover medication abortion, and 86.9 percent of employment-based health plans cover in-clinic abortion. The Kaiser Family Foundation's 2003 Employer Health Benefits Survey found that 46 percent of workers have coverage for abortion services. And when looking at larger firms, the rate is more than 50 percent.

3. Myth: Health care reform would mandate that virtually every American be forced into a health plan that includes abortion coverage.

Reality: Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of medical procedure -- in the Exchange.

4. Myth: Abortion coverage is mandated in health reform bills unless explicitly restricted.

Reality: Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of health care service -- in the Exchange. Opponents of women's health and health care reform are exploiting this legislation as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace.

Health care reform is an important goal -- but not at the expense of women's health. As the leading provider of contraception and reproductive health care in America, Planned Parenthood will continue to stand up for the health of women and their families. You can do your part -- go to www.plannedparenthood.org and tell your member of Congress to ensure that women have access to affordable care by a provider they trust. And stay tuned -- the campaign against women's health has only just begun.

Comments

[colleen10001]

You say…

“Public opinion research has shown repeatedly that a major concern of women voters is that they could be left worse off after health care reform.”
We know these big bad pro-life conservatives you reference don’t agree or accept the House’s current Heath Care Bill‘s drafted before Recess, that is what all the town hall concerns have been about.

which is it?

You wrote:

“The public health insurance plan in the Exchange would operate like any private insurance plan would.” that’s impossible , who would is repulating the government program. The government, the same people that operate the government program. What??.

Obviously, there will be an increase in abortions. Eventually the private insurance won’t be able to compete with a public Health Care System, since the government itself will be the one setting the guidelines for the same program it has in this “Exchange” you keep referencing.

Since Abortion will be part of the Public Health Care system then everyone who in the past, may have had second thoughts about having an abortion will have the option right there, immediately in front of them. This includes women that are naturally scared or concerned at learning there pregnant (the Most Beautiful things don’t always happen when we expect or PLAN them) and may need to take a step back and realize they are INCREDABLE GREAT WOMEN that can have their child. Instead the system will be right their, at the ready to provide an abortion.

[WillistonElkoAlum2002]

I fully support the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Our tax money should be allowed to go towards abortions -- after all, our money has gone to an illegal war in Iraq. We have had a considerable rise in tax protesters in the past half-dozen years because of Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

[Aaror]

Ironically, not providing health care for women drives up the abortion rate (which is good for the pro-life leaders who make money on the debate, even if the rank and file supporters don't like it).
Here is why:
Woman with health care (which includes abortion option), has sex, since she has insurance, she had access to contraceptives, if she accidentally has unprotected sex, the morning after pill is available. If she is in a committed relationship, she may decide to get pregnant or keep a baby from unprotected sex since she knows she has health care for the child.
Woman without health care, can't afford some contraceptive options (IUD's come to mind), has unprotected sex, can't afford doctor's visit to get morning after pill (and hasn't had a doctor's visit recently to know her options), gets pregnant, and pays for an abortion out of her own pocket because she can't afford the cost of delivery and health care for the child.
Abortions cost about 1/10th what delivering a child costs, if you make women pay for it, what do you think "market forces," will encourage (not that I believe that women put a dollar value on their children, but if they can't afford a child, then they have no choice).

[Oldsop]

Your logic is defective. The data reveal that the abortion rate before roe v wade was less than a 100 per year. Now your friends at Planned Parenthood perform 250,000 abortions per year and that is only about 20% of all performed in the U.S.A.

[HPdevotee]

Less than a 100 per year, you say. Wouldn't happen to have a citation for that number would you?

[kitkatborn]

You wouldn't have figures on illegal abortions, now would you?

[RuthieBabe]

What about the back-alley abortions? Those were never counted and no one knows just how many were actually done each year (or how many women died as a result). I am old enough to remember those bad old days and I knew a couple of women who had it done. They were women caught in a desperate time and their stories are tragic.

[rosiebond007]

Good point -

Those grey haired old men (probably consuming viagra on our ins. dime) are unable to keep out of our health and well-being and are unable to understand the work of FAMILY "PLANNING" !!!

[sunnybunny]

Now you're thinking sensibly, and addressing the REASON WHY people have unintended pregnancies.

[colleen10001]

If you don't have insurance and become extremely sick to the point of costing the tax payers quite a bit of money in surgeries, rehab, etc. instead of paying for all that we could knock you off for much less than 1/10th the amount to keep you living. Especially if your not nproductive. Maybe that is how to handle things.

[colleen10001]

Heck, it would cost much less then 1/10th the amount, as you referenced , to clinically end a persons life then keep them alive if they are not being productive and are costing our health care system a lot of money. So what do you think terminate people that get in serious eniogh accidents that just cost all of us a lot of money to keep alive? Where do you want to draw this line?

[Aaror]

It is a simple idea: By saying that the public option "pushes," funding of abortion, they can get a "compromise," that prevents the public option from funding abortion or contraception. The Insurance companies will push congress to be "better safe than sorry," and write the bill to interpret family planning services very broadly (in case some new type of abortion like condoms would be covered). Then women have to choose between a public option that won't pay for major parts of their health, or a more expensive private plan. Conservitives win either way, the health insurance industry keeps a lot of people who would otherwise leave (and prices women's plans higher than men's), and women in theory have fewer abortions. Of course in practice the abortion rate would go up because family planning wouldn't be covered, but that is good for the pro-life leaders.

[quillsinister]

Tom Tomorrow beat me to this observation, but it bears repeating:

If the Right doesn't want their tax dollars going to fund abortion because they disagree with it, does that mean the portion of my own taxes that has gone, or will go, to pay for the war in Iraq will be refunded?

Of course the answer is no, I'm just amused to see how selctively the Right applies this principle. They are against abortion on moral grounds because it involves killing through personal choice, often rooted in arguments of convenience or economics rather than clear and present need. I'm against preemptive war for the same reason.

I'll be waiting for my check.

:-)

[Oldsop]

I am mostly conservative and I don't want to pay for abortions via tax and don't want you paying for war via tax. Touche.

[unitron]

"But, as usual, the far right wants government out of our lives except when they don't..."

They want government out of their lives, not yours. Yours they want to control by any means available.

[mergina]

Life on this miserable festering ANTHILL OF A PLANET demands ABORTION. The human race is like a virus growing and choking this planet. Pro choice people need to start getting brutal with those that stand in the way of their freedom to choose. Can you IMAGINE, for a moment, just what life on this planet is like in the not too distant years to come, when humanity continues to breed itself out of existence, there are more than 8 BILLION people choking and each other AND STILL BREEDING OUT OF CONTROL, there is less land mass for the BILLIONS OF BREEDERS to live on due to massive flooding of the worlds coastlines, the inevitable disruption of our ability to produce food, the disease, the murder rampages that will insue just to get what you have and they want. SURE, go ahead and continue to bring little billy or suzie into the world. Their future has never been brighter in the delusion of a breeders minds eye.

[pinkibus]

Double ditto that..

And anyway, ALL medical decisions must be made by the doctor and the patient. Separation of doctor and religion.

[Aaror]

You know, I always joked that abortion has four points of view, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-life, and anti-life.
Pro-Choice are not in favor of abortions, but want the choice available. Pro-Life want to prevent abortions by any means appropriate (which is why many supported Obama's plans to improve women's opportunities which would lower the abortion rate far more than making abortion illegal would).
Anti-Choice want to punish women for having sex, they are against birth control, abortion, welfare, and anything else that would help women who can't afford children (WIC, EITC, S-CHIP come to mind). They actually increase the abortion rate by their other policies.
I always talked about the mythical Anti-Life position, you are the first person I have found to take this point of view...

[rosiebond007]

no - it's about over population on the planet.
you need to understand this impending catastrophe

[Oldsop]

I have said this befor on HP but here it is again:
The terms we use are designed to convince rather than describe; i.e., pro-choice is not the opposite of pro-life and vice versa; hence we have the conflict. Consider that your choice of words only satisfies your position. Also consider that pro-choice only describes a single event. Pro-life is the resistance to the multiple events that follow when someone decides to terminate a pregnancy. Both sides don't advocate or resist the same ideas per se. They argue because the opposite side almost speaks a different language while using the same words. Your definition of the issue is no more correct than your opposition's definitions. The only thing for certain is that the conflict will continue indefinitely

[babeltek]

American tax dollars ALREADY go to Planned Parenthood for abortions. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_parenthood under the "facilities and funding" section.

[HPdevotee]

Wrong.

In 1976, Rep. Henry Hyde, a Republican from Illinois, introduces what is popularly called the "Hyde Amendment," which prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions for poor women.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm#hyde

[iskra]

Too bad he didn't push a "support for poor new mothers" bill at the same time.

[sunnybunny]

Hasn't that been the law for over 30 yrs now?

[babeltek]

Well, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone by suggesting that government funded insurance already allows for abortions, which should be obvious to anyone who went to the wikipedia page. I was only suggesting that tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood.

[been2there]

The questions of abortion coverage is not addressed. Some plans will cover it, some won't. I personally think all plans should cover abortion for medical reasons, including the mother's mental health. For those who don't like that idea, I can only point out that my taxes pay for a whole lot of things I don't like, like a failed drug war, illegal wars of occupation, and various other Bush abombinations.
Men can avoid fatherhood by not depositing sperm; once said sperm is deposited, a man's obligitory involvement is over, and with it, his control. Women have more control because women's bodies are involved obligitorialy for a longer period.

[rosiebond007]

i resent paying for viagra too

[Karl Jonas]

i resent paying for iraq & afghanistan.

[Unassimilated]

I resent paying for continued foreign (US) occupation of my tribal homeland.

[calirighty]

Sorry but you are wrong. If one single dime of tax payer money goes towards ANYONE receiving health care coverage that includes abortion then by definition it means that it is government funded. I have YET to see ANY bill presented that does NOT include some sort of government assistance to purchase health care. So I take exception with your absurd assertion that government would not be funding abortions. You use the case of private insurers offering abortions. That is true. And I would like you to show me your proof that not one single person with private insurance received those benefits from a government (tax payer paid) job. That claim is an outright lie.

[dulcis]

it is extreme to claim that if a single dime goes towards an abortion it equates to government funding. you should examine the rationality of your viewpoint, and stop charging people who make reasonable claims with making outright lies

[Oldsop]

Nice try but calirighty is correct on this point.

[NoWorseThanUsual]

I have been researching, where did these right-wingers ever get the idea that this legislation would mandate that private insurance plans cover abortions, or would result in government-run health programs paying for elective abortions? Here is what I found: It goes back to when Barack Obama appeared before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007, and said, "Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose . . . insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care . . . that's going to be absolutely vital."
Then in April Cecile Richards herself went on NPR and said that the health care reform bill would provide a "platform" to extend access to abortion to "all women and families." Next, the National Abortion Federation put out a position paper that said, "NAF supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, for all women." The president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, said, "Let there be no mistake, basic healthcare includes abortion services." NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said, "If, indeed, we can advance a panel or commission, then I am very optimistic about reproductive health care being part of this entire package."

Those right wingers -- what will they dream up next?

[Aaror]

So what you are quoting says, in a nutshell, "Right now a lot of women don't have health care, so they can't afford family planning. This means they can't afford birth control, and get pregnant, and then pay for abortions out of their own pockets. If we get health care for those women, that coverage will cover what other health care plans cover, which includes abortions, but also includes contraceptives. Paying for contraceptives will reduce the abortion rate and save the government money. Also, when women have health insurance, having a child is less of a risk, so they will be less likely to have abortions, this will cost the government more money, but it should work out to a wash.

[katepoet]

Women's Rights

Women have equal rights
and make decisions for themselves,
the Family Research Council
wants to see women's rights shelved.

Rational Truth

The Family Research Council
is lying about our health care,
creating fear's stench is their obvious goal,
but the rational truth clears the air.

http://www.mykuworld.com/MyKu.mvc/Board/550

[calirighty]

Women's rights? Are you kidding me? Many women have ELECTIVE abortions have abortions based solely on their economic situation. Yet men are denied that right to make that same decision. So don't spout this crap about "rights" when in reality it has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with convenience.

[katepoet]

I agree that men's rights appear to be abrogated but I don't have a great way to fix that since the fetus is in the woman's body. It's a part of a man's liability/­responsibi­lity for having sex - that he may not have any input into the results of his sperm interacting with a woman's ovum. Just as a woman who gives up her eggs to a donation center cannot control how those eggs are used. It's a choice.

I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro choice since cutting out the option leads to back room butcher shops and more death, IMHO. I also think that people who are raped or abused need the option. I believe that education in relationships and self-esteem is critical to slowing the rate of unwanted pregnancies, and that the morning after pill that prevents fertilization from occurring should be readily available.

I count on science to give us more answers. For example, if brain cells exist at 6 weeks, is the fetus a sentient being then?

[been2there]

Control begins and ends with the obligitory involvement of your body. A man's body is not involved beyond conception, so that is where a man's control ends. A woman's body is involved up to birth, and is obligatory until viability. Third trimester abortions are for medical emergencies or congenital tragedies. The government has no right to either prevent or force an abortion.

[gotborked]

This is quite a misleading blogpost. For starters, you say it's a "myth" that taxpayer money would be used to cover abortions under the plan, and then go on to say that the plan will cover abortions.

Then you say it's a "myth" that abortion coverage is mandated in health reform bills unless explicitly restricted. You try to defend your claim saying "Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage," but that does not refute the the fact that abortion is covered unless explicitly excluded.

It's also humorous that you fight the "good old-fashioned hysteria" from pro-lifers with your own hysterical claims--like they're waging a "campaign against women's health." No. They're waging a campaign against taxpayers being forced to fund abortion, an elective procedure.

[iskra]

Covering medical procedures isn't hysteria.

Hysteria is bringing a political hot button like abortion into the discussion when insurance companies today cover such procedures. It's not designed to improve the discussion, just hijack it onto religious grounds and get the base roused up.

I thought the GOP didn't want to change anything about their great health care? Lot's of elective procedures are covered, do you want to do away with all insurance coverage for elective procedures?

So if a woman is dying because of a pregnancy, she should pay for her life?

The immorality of the so-called 'Christians' is stunning.

[calirighty]

I would suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension. The poster you responded to was NOT referring to a life a death situation that required immediate medical care. They were referring to ELECTIVE abortions. Look up the word. Elective abortions include those due to financial reasons and those because the woman does not want to be a mother. What is "immoral" is the fact that you people like you keep rolling the worst case scenarios into every discussion and justifying ALL abortions based on that criteria. That is more than intellectually dishonest. It is LUNACY. And the last time I checked, the only elective procedure that resulted in the destruction of human life is abortion.

[iskra]

As always the GOP finds the issues that matter to their support, not the American people.

While they continue to trot this fear out to their base, they ignore the fact that we have the highest infant mortality in the western world.

So as far as the GOP is concerned, abortion is a horrible thing to fear and therefore health care reform should be stopped, yet babies that die after birth are not a concern and we should just keep the status quo.

Another stunning demonstration of the complete lack of morals of these people.

[smileatfear]

Not to mention they love paying for bombs and bullets that kill children and pregnant women in other countries.

[gotborked]

There is no one who thinks babies dying "are not a concern". What an odd statement to make. It is precisely out of concern for their babies and loved ones that people are against Obamacare.

[iskra]

We have the 37th worst health care system in the world with the highest rate of infant mortality in the western world.

People that are against health care reform, those that wish to continue to have shorter lifespans, worse outcomes and more infant deaths are immoral. Plain and simple.

They'd rather cling to ignorance and fear than actually change something that isn't working.

Forget the millions without insurance, forget the 22,0000 people dying without insurance each year, forget the bankruptcies and destroyed families.

It appears that the main concern is making sure that the insurance companies are recovering their lost investments off the backs of you and your family rather than finding a solution to the huge problem we have draining us financially and physically.

If you loved your children wouldn't you want them not to die in debt before their time?

[pinkibus]

If you believe that then you must believe in the tooth fairy too.

[Not Blind]

These same think tanks (sponsored by and paid for with profits from insurers, big pharma, and the lucrative health care providers) are also running ads saying how the proposed health care reforms will kill granny. They're distorting the truth and attempting to scare the elderly into worrying they'll be euthanized under a single-payer or public option.

REAL FACTS
1. We spend 2.5 times on health care what every other industrial­ized-devel­oped nation in the world does. Our outcomes (data on infant mortality, life-expectancy, accessibility, wellness, illness prevention) rival Third World Countries. It's clear we're not getting our money's worth in the current system.
2. US businesses spend nearly 3 times for employee benefits their foreign counterparts do, forcing many to outsource jobs or move production off-shore to remain competitive and profitable. This exacerbates unemployment.
3. Today, health care takes 17% of our GDP while other nations with cradle-to-grave plans available to everyone take less than 10%. As businesses shed workers or move out of the US, tax revenues are reduced while demands for social-public services increase, further straining federal and state budgets.
4. The cost (estimated by the CBO $1.6 trillion over a decade) will be minimal compared to the losses of tax revenues and increased demands for services on governments, loss of businesses and jobs in this country, and the impact of hundreds of thousands more bankruptcies (due to catastrphic illness or injury) should we fail to act.

[calirighty]

I don't understand people like you. You compare this country to every other "industrialized nation" in the world. Let me ask you. Have you compared what it costs to go to medical school in the United States as opposed to these other nations? Have you compared the average salary of doctors in this nation to those in others? Have you compared costs of malpractice insurance as opposed to other nations? Have you compared the cost of hiring nurses and specialists to those same costs of other nations? You can not just look at the end results and make a side by side comparison. People like you complain that workers in this country are under paid, yet in an industry where workers are paid very well, you complain about the associated costs. You can't have it both ways. And yes you ARE blind.

[prd mom to 4]

So by your logic paying more and earning more means better, right? Well, we pay more for health care, but don't receive the best care. We pay more for school, but we don't receive the best education. We pay more for insurance, but don't get the best coverage. So basically, we're wasting our money!

And don't even get me started on salaries! We live in a country where people who entertain us get paid 10 times more than those who heal us and educate us. The end result is the same. We're getting shafted!

[quillsinister]

Please refer again to REAL FACT 1.

BTW, I've been stationed in Europe for almost three years, and I was stationed in Japan for two. I have met very few people (ok, none, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere) that would trade their system for our own. My ex-pat friends agree. (I seek the opinions of others because, as a military officer, I already have socialized medicine. When I break, I get fixed. Period. It's a huge load off my mind.)

I'm all for the invisible hand and the free market in some places, but greed is not the best motivator for every little thing. Medicine should be socialized for the same reasons fire departments are.

Look at it from another perspective. The endstrength of a nation is enhanced when its workforce is healthy. Pooling a nation's resources to make this occur isn't socialism, it's just good economics. We pay more while getting less, and that makes us less able to compete on the global stage.

:-)

[Aaror]

yeah, maybe we should pay for people to go to medical school, replace malpractice insurance with revokation of medical licenses, and train more medical specialists and nurses like other nations do-oh wait, that would be socialized health care, we can't have that!

[pinkibus]

cal;

Going to medical school or any other post secondary educational institute should be subsidized. Not only does America have serious problems with health care which lead to premature death, America has fallen ever lower in education compared to developed and even third world countries. Given that America is such a highly Christianized country this is amazing. Anyone who has even limited knowledge of the Gospels knows what Christ would say and do re health care for everyone - rich or poor. That goes for education too.