If you thought that just because abortion is a constitutional right and part of basic reproductive health care it would be available in the reformed health insurance market known as the Exchange, think again. The Stupak Amendment, passed Saturday night by the House of Representatives after a compromise deal fell apart, potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women's access to abortion.
The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false. Here's what the Stupak Amendment does:
1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits." As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).
2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.
3. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn't ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.
4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers: Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility "because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions." Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services.
One in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Eighty-seven percent of employer plans offer abortion coverage. None of that will matter if the Senate takes its cues from the House. In every other way, this bill will expand access to health care. But for millions of women, they are about to lose coverage they currently have and often need.
This piece was originally posted on The Wonk Room.
There's a word for this -- it's called buying "insurance". That's kind of the point after all!
I am a vegetarian and I assure you, I am every bit as opposed to the beef, poultry, and pork industries as anti-abortion advocates are against abortion; why not a law stipulating that no tax dollars can be spent subsidizing these industries because I and millions of my fellow citizens feel their activities are morally reprehensible?
If our government renders an activity legal, we can protest, argue our objections, even work hard to persuade our government to our point of view, but we are ALL obligated to recognize the authority of law. Anyone may disagree with it; they may find it morally reprehensible, but they cannot subvert the rights of citizens who disagree with them by subverting the laws they don't like. It is not “reasonable” that a specific group of citizens be allowed to impose their moral opinions on the other citizens unless or until EVERY citizen can ‘opt out’ of any legal government policy or law, and stipulate how and on what their individual tax dollars are spent.
It's time to push for the ratification of ERA.
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Had this amendment been ratified we wouldn't be having this discussion.
What are you going to do when some religious sect wants to start changing your life?
What if the Catholc Church has to approve divorces for non-beilievers and Catholics alike? When they take birth control pills and condems off the market? When Mormons get porhibition reinstated and you can't hoist a beer?
If you aren't prepared to spend you life genuflecting in magic underpants you better think aobut this.
There's way too much misinformation on this thread.
I'm sure people who buy fire insurance don't expect to have his or her house burn down, and if they do, they're going to have some real problems with the insurer. Second, unless there's an epidemic of parenthogenesis going around, one cannot say that a pregnancy is a COMPLETELY unexpected event. With proper precautions, it is an unlikely occurence, just like your house burning down, and the whole point of insurance is to cover those types of events.
Oh yeah, it's exactly the same as "fire insurance."
Birth control pills aren't "cheap", BTW. Not all insurers pay for them.
In most cases abortion is elective. What insurance covers elective procedures?
Women are sent home to wait for a miscarriage now in several states thanks to the Partial birth abortion fiasco of the Supreme court.
They banned the only safe procedure for extracting a larger fetus. The remaining procedure is too difficult and dangerous for most doctors to perform so they send women home with dead babies inside them.
This was a large part of Dr. Tiller's practice.
In cases of fetal demise, the life of the woman my be endangered by sepsis and other complications.
And with Doctors liker Tiller m u r d e r e d, there are fewer and fewer doctors willing to risk their lives to save the lives of women in need.
I'm not sure how this would be impacted by Stupak. He was say no "public" rather than no "federal" funds.
2.in cases where contraception fails, abortion, especially first trimester, is still less expensive , medically , than preand post natal care, delivery, and childrearing.
3.I think education and gyn care reduces costs, reduces # of unwanted pregnancies, encourages and allows earlier decisions regarding pregnancy,(fewer late term abortions)..and of course provides care for women who choose childbirth.
This is one area where insurers , healthcare professionals and rational women agree.
so how did this get so far off track?