There is much to praise in the ground breaking health care reform bill that just passed the House. It will provide an additional 36 million more Americans with affordable health insurance, meaning that 96% of all Americans will be insured. There will be no more denials of coverage due to "pre-existing conditions." And there will be a public option to create choice and competition.
Yet the historic passage of a health care bill came with an inescapably cruel irony. There is an amendment in the bill that threatens the health of millions of American women. By dramatically restricting women's reproductive rights, the Stupak Amendment is a terrible step backwards and a serious threat to women's health. Fortunately, we have the President on our side. "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama declared. And fortunately, there is still time to fix it to make it abortion neutral.
The Stupak Amendment effectively bans coverage for nearly all abortions from all public and private health plans in the health insurance marketplace known as the Exchange. This restriction goes far beyond the perennial Hyde amendment ban on federal funding for abortions. It would go farther than any current federal law to restrict women's access to abortion.
If you are one of the millions of women who will be using your own funds to purchase a private health insurance policy through the Exchange, the Stupak Amendment means you almost certainly won't have access to a policy offering coverage for abortion. Why? Because others purchasing health insurance on the Exchange are likely to be using federal subsidies offered to make health insurance premiums affordable - and the Stupak Amendment stipulates that any plan that accepts even $1 of federal subsidies cannot offer abortion coverage. Since every plan offered to you in the Exchange will have other policy-holders who are receiving federal subsidies, no plan can contain abortion coverage. This will effectively eliminate access to reproductive choice for low- and moderate-income women who cannot afford health care that is not covered by their insurance policies.
The Stupak Amendment does permit the coverage of abortion in the event of rape, incest, or where the woman is "in danger of death" unless an abortion is performed. It makes absolutely no provision whatsoever for consideration of the health of the woman, physical or psychological. Imagine a low-income woman who suffers from chronic kidney disease and unintentionally becomes pregnant. The maternal risks of such a pregnancy include new or worsening hypertension, diabetes, infection, preeclampsia, and a decline in kidney function. With extensive and invasive treatment - including more than 20 hours a week of dialysis - chronic kidney disease patients can carry a pregnancy to term, but not without serious health risks to the mother and the fetus. Because of the Stupak Amendment, that woman would not have any insurance coverage if she wished to terminate a potentially debilitating pregnancy.
The Stupak Amendment is an attempt to radically roll back reproductive rights. If you have any doubts about the larger implications, just listen to the cheers coming from the opponents of a woman's right to choose. "This historic vote in the United States House of Representatives signals the beginning of the end for 'Roe v. Wade,'" crows one. "Pounds a Nail in the Eventual Coffin of 'Roe v. Wade,'" celebrates another.
While the bill has passed in the House, there will be many changes before a health insurance reform bill reaches the President's desk. The President has made clear that "there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo" on abortion rights. But it will take the full support of the millions of Americans who believe we cannot afford a march back toward the dark ages of back-alley abortions.
Marcia Angell, M.D.: Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?
The House Health bill just throws good money after the bad. And because costs will keep rising, there is now a danger that people will conclude reform is impossible, when in reality, we still haven't really tried.
Senior Democrat is 'confident' that Stupak amendment will be ...
Boxer: Senate Has Votes To Block Stupak Amendment
don't allow it, it's easy enough, use what you have, what every man wants and DON'T be ashamed of it
And, to quote numerous insurance companies when I would write appeal letters in behalf of my patients, just because they won't pay doesn't mean the patient can't pay for it themselves. I personally don't have a problem with the amendment-I have a huge problem with how the amendment came to be. I see Democrats, elected by Democrats, trying to appease Republicans with this Congress. I didn't see Republicans trying to appease Democrats with the last Congress. And appeasing Republicans in 2009 means trashing our civil rights-not good.
Millions? Can anyone site a study to back up these claims? All I have seen so far is rhetoric that doesn't quite jive...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is a mandate that we must buy insurance whether we
want it or can afford it. Thats the biggest flaw in this "bill".
If mandates to but whatever we need
worked, (regardless of whether we could afford it)
we could end the hunger problem buy mandating that
the hungry buy food.
Oh yeah, no public option makes it even more
unworkable.
I never understand why things like viagara, birth control and abortion are mandated to be covered. People who want such things should get "sexed up" plans and not pass the cost on to the rest of us who don't want permanent erections, who dont want to be bloated, irratable and constantly tricking our bodies into believing we are pregnant and who dont want to abort our own flesh and blood.
the thing is these are the people who are really obsessed with sex, that's why the loudest and most visible are men. I think women should just start taking care of themselves, stop having sex until men realize that we will not allow them to control us in any way.
So what is the arguement all about. If you want an abortion it is a womans right to have one. It's not a right that anybody else pays for one.
It's a womans choice, let the woman pay. period. end of story.
I've comforted a friend who's fetus died at 3 months who had to live with a dead thing inside her for two while arguing with her insurance company (that would not cover removal because they called it an abortion). In the end she went to Planned Parenthood. It was a ripoff that she paid for insurance and didn't have coverage for the after-effects of her miscarriage. But at least she was able to get insurance somewhere else.
personlly, I'd rather pay up front. the drs. are happier and it eliminates the middleman. the insurance companies have a stranglehold on everyone, drs. and the public. When I took my son for stitches it cost about $1000 including antibiotics, but all my follow up visits were free because I paid cash.
imagine how freaked out the insurance companies would be if people just canceled their policies and started paying cash, I am sure we the people could get whatever health insurance plan we wanted if we threatened to do just that.
The same arrogant, fear mongering conservative forces want to dictate what marriage and family life must mean for everyone. And what religions are acceptable. So - yes - it is all about choice.