Healthcare Stories the Supreme Court Needs to Read

Friday marks the two-year anniversary of President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law.

This landmark piece of legislation brings 30 million Americans into a healthcare system that includes affordable family-planning services, better access to contraception, and maternity care. It represents one of the greatest advances for women's health in a generation.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Let's hear from some of the women who have already benefited from the health reform law, or who have a lot to gain when it's fully up and running.

Alison in Washington is now able to stay on her parents' insurance until she turns 26:

Thanks to the new health-care law, I was able to stay on my parents' health-insurance plan after college. If the law is repealed and I am no longer able to be on their health insurance, I don't know if I will be able to cover all of the costs for my health care.

Maggie in Georgia thinks about her daughter, who takes birth control for a serious medical condition:

My daughter has to take birth-control pills for severe polycystic ovary syndrome. Last year, she had to have surgery to remove two huge cysts from one of her ovaries and almost lost the ovary. If her insurance were not paying for the pills, she and her husband could not afford them.

Patricia in Missouri worries about losing her health insurance entirely:

If the health-care law were overturned it would mean that I wouldn't be able to change health-care providers because I have a "preexisting condition." I would be locked into my current carrier no matter how poor the service, or expensive it becomes. New companies would be able to deny me coverage. This is unfair!

These are the people who stand to lose if efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act are successful.

Attacks on the health reform law are part of an ongoing campaign from anti-choice politicians to make it harder for women to get affordable health care.

We saw this in the recent debate over President Obama's policy to provide contraceptive coverage for women. The Senate narrowly rejected a measure that would have allowed bosses to deny birth-control coverage to their employees.

When a female law student, Sandra Fluke, dared to speak out in support of the president's contraceptive-coverage policy, radio personality Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and "prostitute."

Nearly as despicable as Limbaugh's comments was the reaction from many of the same politicians pushing attacks on birth control. Both of the leading Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, refused to issue a stern rebuke of Limbaugh.

The attacks on the health reform law are targeting women in the same way as these legislative attacks and ugly rhetoric.

Next week, the Supreme Court will begin to hear three days of arguments from opponents who want to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

If the court strikes down this law, better coverage of prenatal care and contraceptives for millions of women could disappear. Insurance companies would go on charging women more money for health-care services than men, which The New York Times reported on yesterday.

The results would be devastating for women like Alison, Maggie, and Patricia.

That's why we must stand with President Obama and women across this country in supporting this important law.

NARAL Pro-Choice America will mobilize our supporters at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 27, the day on which healthcare advocates will focus on how the law helps women get affordable care.

Since these anti-choice politicians have decided to take their War on Women to the Supreme Court, we'll meet them at the steps.

 

Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL

Comments

[kmc528]

08:55 AM on 03/21/2012

Half of Americans have a pre-existing condition. 96% of them are invisible. That's a LOT of people who will benefit from the part that forces insurance companies to insure everyone. Once I used my insurance, they refused to pay for anything ever again (even things not related to that condition), but no other insurance company was willing to insure me, so I was stuck paying for an insurance policy that didn't cover what I had contracted for.

[Dr Gregory Evans Haley]

01:32 PM on 03/20/2012

If the ACA gets repealed, my mother dies. It's that simple. Before the ACA, it was illegal for Americans to shop for medication from foreign Suppliers. Her ONE pill per day she has to take to keep her Leukemia permanently in remission costs more than $4,000 every month in the U.S.! She buys the exact same medication now from overseas for about $500 per month. If the ACA gets repealed, she will Lise access to her medication, and her doctors tell her that is a death penalty. Every time a Republican argues about repealing "Obamacare," it is an argument that my hard working, middle class mother has to die. That's a real world example of what that bill means to my family.

[Hawkeye2010]

01:06 PM on 03/20/2012

What a great arguement for the supreme court, lets let sob stories instead of actual law be the determining factor in this case. How assinine this article is.

[Caity Marie]

01:01 PM on 03/20/2012

Perhaps if some of the male politicians' prostitutes and mistresses were ON birth control they wouldn't have illegitimate children.... Edwards. Oh but on the other hand, some of them probably use tax payer money to force the women to have abortions. When it comes down to their daughters they expect them to be abstinent but when they were their daughter's age, they weren't abstinent themselves. It is a double edged sword and it is unfair and unethical. It is human nature to have sex for pleasure, we are only 1 of 2 species that has sex for pleasure and so it is not something that is ever going to be stopped. We need to educate the young about contraceptives so that abortions don't have to happen as often but the law shouldn't take our rights away from us because they think that we are irresponsible and uneducated or just because they believe it is "wrong." I think that politicians using women for their pleasure (strippers, prostitutes, mistresses) is wrong and especially if they are using our tax money to do so. However, i don't see that being stopped... There are lots of things that are "wrong" in this world, but basic medical care is not wrong.

[MrStat1]

12:54 PM on 03/20/2012

They do not. The Supreme Court makes ruling on the basis of constitutional law, not horror stories about people. Those are not germaine to the legal issue at hand and not relevent in law.

[CTDFalconer]

01:57 PM on 03/20/2012

Hard to believe though it may be, the Supes actually do consider the implications of their actions.

[JPMac]

12:31 PM on 03/20/2012

Sorry Nancy your sob stories don't trump that fact that the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional! Is there a liberal that can deal in facts without finding some victim to divert attention from the real discussion!

[OldHenry]

11:24 AM on 03/20/2012

The Supreme Court doesn't need to hear any stories. There job is to determine whether or not congress has obeyed the constitution in passing this law. Whether or not the law is good or helpful is completely irrelevant.

For the love of God does the constitution even matter anymore?

[Richard Gates]

11:19 AM on 03/20/2012

The Constitutionality of a law should not be decided by emotional arguments. Each of these cases are very compelling. But if you don't like the outcome, amend the Constitution.

[Chanel Hilliard]

10:59 AM on 03/20/2012

I am losing my vision. There are no charities out there to help me, I am either to old for the 18 and under, or to young for the 65 & medicare. I can't afford insurance, have worked and paid taxes since I was 15 and there is absolutely nothing for the working class. My friends and I are having yard sales and fund raisers to pay for my vision surgery. I have been at my job for 21 years and will work until I go blind, then go on some type of assistance. You would think the poor & the rich I am supporting with tax-dollars, would want me to stay healthy so I can keep contributing. I NEED AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE and President Obama is the only one who seems to want me to have it.

[JPMac]

12:33 PM on 03/20/2012

Affordable to who you said you can't afford health insurance so I guess affordable means free to you! Meaning someone else will be stuck with the bill!

[CTDFalconer]

02:00 PM on 03/20/2012

Are you deliberately ignorant? When someone says, "affordable" it implies that they are willing to pay a price for what they get. If Chanel Hilliard meant "free," I'm sure that's the word that would have been chosen.

We all need affordable health care. That should be obvious even to you.

[Chanel Hilliard]

02:46 PM on 03/20/2012

JPMac. You don't know me or my situation. What right do you have to sit there and judge me? I haven't asked for a handout, I haven't asked for anything free. I could quit my job, claim all sorts of disabilities and ride the system, letting others support me, But that isn't what I do. AFFORDABLE means a monthly premium and deductible that is reasonable based on my income. I can't afford healthcare because I don't have $440+ dollars a month to pay a premium, I would never use. In 48 years I have only gone to the doctor for yearly check-ups and delivery of 2 children. Which I paid for. I am a working tax-payer, Where are my benefits? Where is my help? The rich and the poor are paying their medical bills off of my back. Why is it wrong for me to ask for a reasonable insurance policy? HAVEN'T I EARNED IT?
People are really stupid when it comes to the healthcare package. Pay Attn: I don't work for Fox News, so the facts are. The healthcare plan and premiums are based on a sliding scale pertaining to you income. Therefore EVERYONE pays something, not just the working few. Everyone contributes to their own medical needs, not the tax-payers supporting everyone else and doing without.

[Mikelaw]

10:45 AM on 03/20/2012

Much as these stories may tear at our heartstrings.....they matter not one whit if the law is unconstitutional. The ends cannot justify the means.

[Ano333]

10:36 AM on 03/20/2012

The question before the Supreme Court is about the constitutionality of the mandate, and thus has nothing to do with these stories you are telling. The stories may be important in the political fight, but they are not important when it comes to the issue of constitutionality...

[RedDog79]

12:27 PM on 03/20/2012

so you 'd rather continue to pay for people who screw the system and you'd rather continue to pay big premiums because of that.
I'd prefer to have the insurance companies regulated so heavily that the only choice is to have a single payor system.