Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose
The health care bill passed in the House of Representatives on Saturday night makes many improvements to benefit women. It bans gender rating for premiums, prevents breast cancer survivors and domestic abuse victims from being denied coverage, and expands access to preventive care like cancer screenings.
Unfortunately, as a result of the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, it continues gender discrimination by providing the largest expansion of anti-choice language since the Hyde Amendment.
Our message is clear: we will not support any final bill that restricts women's access to reproductive health services beyond current law. Before any bill reaches the President's desk, language that takes us back to the last century by undermining women's rights must be eliminated.
Like it or not -- and we don't -- the Hyde amendment prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in the case of rape, incest or life-endangering threats to the woman. This denial of federal funding for a legal medical procedure has been contained in annual appropriations bills for many years. And it was included in the health bill before Representatives Stupak and Pitts offered their amendment.
The Capps amendment -- passed in the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- makes clear that not one federal dollar would be spent on abortions. It ensures that federal law will be maintained.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes much further. It says that the public option cannot offer abortion coverage to any of its enrollees -- even to those who pay 100% of premiums with their own dollars.
It says that no federal dollars can go to any health plan that includes coverage of abortion beyond the very narrow Hyde amendment exemptions - again, even for those who pay 100% of the premiums with their own dollars.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment tells women that if they want access to abortion - a legal medical procedure -- they need to buy a separate policy, a "rider."
This is offensive to women -- the notion is an insult, it is unworkable and it is discriminatory. Why should a woman purchase separate insurance in advance because she might have an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that goes terribly wrong -- who anticipates that? Would we expect someone to purchase supplemental coverage because they might get cancer or get hit by a bus?
The Stupak-Pitts amendment is not the status quo -- it is a step backward for women who want to move forward.
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Vice Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is also the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Co-Chair Congressional Women's Caucus; Chair Democratic Women's Working Group; Chair Progressive Caucus Health Care Task Force.This oped is cross-posted with Politico Ideas, where it first appeared.
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.
Lawmakers Feud Over Church's Role in Health Care Debate
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm not one for posting comments, but I've decided to post over and over one point. Abortion, Afghanistan, Unemployment, Economy.
We need to get the media or we need to start asking questions. For example, General, why are we in Afghanistan? What do we hope to do there? It's sad, you won't get a straight answer.
That's better than posting comments over and over. I don't get along with people in real life that well and I'm very quiet, so not big on comments. I think it would help a lot if these questions came from the media.
I coined the verb STUPAK-ed
stupaked = when you throw all the lying SOB's stuff out of the House
Put it in his convertable sports car, soak it with gas, and toss a cig on it.
http://blogs.bet.com/entertainment/whattheflick/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/angela-bassett-waiting_l.jpg
see Waiting to Exhale
Interesting point was made in the discussion that recommended that all individuals that advocate abortion (pro-choice) should be able to pay taxes (i.e. check the box in their tax form like election donations) to federally fund abortions and those who don't (pro-life) shouldn't have to pay the taxes for the procedure. Being the nerd I am, I approximated the math.
-approximately 1.2 million abortions are conducted each year (lets assume the government pays for all of them-and this number doesnt grow as a result of subsidized abortions)
-Abortions cost between 700 to 10,000 dollars per procedure depending on gestation period. This would put the maximum cost at approximately 10 billion dollars per year.
-2009 gallup poll indicated that 51% of americans identify themselves as pro-life and 49% identify themselves as pro-choice.
- only 57% of 307 million americans pay federal income tax which comes to 174,990,000 and lets use the gallup poll to approximate 49% of them as pro-choice so that would come to 85,745,100 americans splitting 10 billion dollars a year coming to $116 dollars per pro-choice federal income tax payer per year.
How's about boxes for supporting war or no war, faith-based initiatives or no faith-based initiatives, abstinence inculcation or no abstinence inculcation, supporting gang raping mercenary companies or no support for gang raping mercenary companies, overthrowing democratically elected leaders or not overthrowing democratically elected leaders, funding nuclear weapons or not funding nuclear weapons, etc. Estimating a B-52 bomber costs approx $750 million + $16000/hr to operate, all aircraft used in service of war should be assessed at that amount when formulating the total war tax among those opting to support war.
Hey I am just trying to further the discussion of a pro-choice poster on this issue. Nothing more.
Bring the bill to the house for a vote and let them vote on it. If congress passes a bill that says no more wars then we will live with it.
CNBC just showed a "2010 Generic Congressional Poll"
IT SHOWED REPUBLICANS LEADING DEMOCRATS 48% TO 44%''
GUESS WHAT FOLKS?
NO HEALTHCARE..
MORE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS.
THESE TWO LADIES HAVE JUST DECIDED HOW LONG THEY WILL REMAIN IN CONGRESS.
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON BETTER HEALTHCARE AND GETTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK!
More like the Blue Dog DINOs will be the ones who get rejected by the Dems. No one is confused about who started this, not even you.
A recent study showed 92% of parents when getting a Downs Syndrome diagnoses choose abortion. Sad when you can't even know, even then how severe the DS will be in your child. I knew a DS girl who started in public school, but she hit too much. Then there was one boy everyone loved and was the assistant football coach in high school, even after he had obviously graduated. I don't even know if he's still alive as the average lifespan of a DS person tends to be younger than us. My thoughts and question on this study is this: What part of that decision had something to do with Heath Insurance and finances? Yeah it's illegal to not insure children, but parents making just a tad too much do not qualify for Medicaid and that child won't qualify until a full evaluation is done and even then it's all up in the air. And we already know how insurance companies manipulate their own policies to save money.
Have any of you read the Representatives arguments above or are you just making stuff up? They are not advocating reversing the Hyde amendment. This is not about government subsidized abortions.
This is about women who purchase insurance through the government run insurance exchange and whether or not they should have the opportunity to purchase insurance that covers abortions. The Stupak amendment says no even if the women are paying for the insurance 100% with their own money.
The bill forces people to buy insurance and then the amendment tells a specific group of people (women) that they cannot have access to insurance that covers a legal procedure even if they pay for the insurance themselves.
The amendment also tells insurance companies what products they can offer to their customers which is interesting because conservatives usually want government off the backs of corporations.
It's government funding.
And where does that come from?
American taxpayers.
The world does not revolve around these two ladies and their love affair with abortion.
They are sewing the seeds of Republicans winning next year and if we don't get health care then we just have another
DO NOTHING CONGRESS....
WE NEED HEALTHCARE AND IT HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE.
Ask your Catholic bishops for the money, Son. I'm sure they'll be happy to help you out, or are you afraid they don't really care about you *that* much?
The Stupak amendment requires insurance carriers within the exchange to provide policies that both exclude abortion coverage and those that do not. In other words they must provide both, but subsidies will only be provided for women who purchase the policy without abortion coverage. Women must pay for the rider supplemental policy for elective abortions out of pocket. The amendment does not prohibit women from buying such a rider within the exchange, in fact, the amendment specifically requires insurance companies to provide the additional rider policy for those women wishing to purchase it with their own money. Based on the language in the amendment (see link below) the supplemental rider policies will still be included within the exchange in order to provide the competition that many claim will reduce the cost of insurance premiums. The purpose of the Stupak amendment is to prevent what is a potential back door for federal appropriations for abortions under the Hyde Amendment via affordability credits. The Hyde Amendment is navigable and has procedural weaknesses (for one, it has to be re approved by congress each year) that make the Stupak amendment necessary to achieve the intent of the Hyde Amendment (no federal funding for elective abortions).
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/11/the-stupak-amendment-deconstructed.html
There are many reasons people are saying this bill goes far beyond the reach of Hyde.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/10/the-incredibly-long-arms-of-the-stupak-amendment-your-large-employer-insurance-plan-is-not-safe/#comments
I personally thank Rep. DeGette and Rep. Schakowsky for their efforts to defeat the Stupak Amendment. No one should be able to restrict a woman's rights or reproductive health services. It is no secret where various groups and individuals stand on the issue of abortion. The question is whether tax dollars are used to fund the legal procedure. That said, why is it permissible to have any one group or individual determine how THEIR individual tax dollars are spent and not other groups or individuals? To be entirely fair, all of us should get to allocate our tax dollars either to fund or not fund the procedure. The most fair system would be to allow individual taxpayers to select funding the procedure on their tax return as we do with election funding. Those of us who choose to fund the procedure would then have an equal say in how OUR tax dollars are spent. The fund could then be used to pay for the procedure without regard to one's health insurer. I should have an equal say on how MY tax dollars are spent or not spent. The pro-birth constituency has enjoyed that privilege for many years without pushback by pro-choice groups and individuals. Again, the question is not whether one supports abortion, per se. It is a funding question alone. Let's frame it that way. A simple check box on our tax returns could resolve the entire issue.
The intent of the Stupak amendment is no more restrictive than the intent of the Hyde amendment. This story is a red herring. The Hyde amendment has been upheld as constitutional. In other words, women do not have a constitutional right to have their elective abortions paid for by federal appropriations, while some states still do. The Stupak amendment simply closes back door funding authorities that are present in the Hyde Amendment via affordability credits. Having read the amendment several times, I do not see the amendment causing any additional erosion to the current status quo on federal funding of abortions and I do not see it having any additional restrictions to women's reproductive rights as they currently stand.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/11/the-stupak-amendment-deconstructed.html
As the mother of six and the grandmother to 16, I have a more credibility on the topic of reproductive rights than some.
I believe it is the woman's absolute right to choose, not anyone else (other than the father of the children - excluding incestuous fathers and rapists ). I chose to have my children, and my children chose to have their children. The size of my family is not the responsibiliity of the government to determine.
Abortion is not the issue. It is about a woman's autonomy over her reproductive rights. Legalizing abortion was a way to put this control in the hands of women - not in the hands of the government.
Similarly, if a woman wants to purchase a health insurance policy with her own money that includes abortion services, she should have an absolute right to do that. If the woman receives a federal subsidy to purchase health insurance, make abortion services a policy rider she can purchase separately with her own money.
However, when a Catholic Bishop can have a baby, then I'll consider what they have to say about the subject. Time to ban paternalism by unmarried, male church leaders.
it is hypocritical of conservatives to demogogue about abortion while complaining about getting government out of people's lives, but stand deaf and dumb about killing of more than 5000 of our precious children in a war in Iraq based on lies and greed, and the continued slaughter of our children on the battlefields
Another anti catholic
No you have the same credibility as anyone else.
You have the right to your own money and I have the right to mine.
You have no right to tell me that some of my hard earned money that I will pay in the form of a tax has to be spent on your abortion.
And just because you are a Grandmother doesn't mean that you know all.
I totally resent the fact that you want to rule my life that I have been responsible with.
She never said any of the things you're retorting to.
Sheesh.
obviously you don't understand how taxes work. I don't want any of my hard earned tax dollars going to pay for viagra or the war in afghanistan. am I allowed to mark that on my IRS return? NO. you and i don't get a choice as to how our tax dollars are spent. all you or i can do is vote for peopel that you hope will spend your tax dollars in the way you wish they were spent.
Women can purchase a supplemental policy within the insurance exchange to cover abortions under the Stupak amendment. It is just a separate policy from those subsidized by affordability credits. See the language and analysis in the following two links.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/11/the-stupak-amendment-deconstructed.html
"Would we expect someone to purchase supplemental coverage because they might get cancer or get hit by a bus?"
Your comparison is embarrassing and intellectually insulting. As the President said, this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill. Ask yourself, what is healthcare? Is it "efforts made to maintain or restore health" as Webster's says, or is it just any and every procedure performed for any reason so long as it is performed by a doctor? When you answer that question, you see why abortion does not belong in the bill.
You appear confused about the realities of pregnancy and the harms it can and does inflict on women. A short list has been provided elsewhere, and I'll list here, however this does not begin to cover the full range of physical harms women suffer due to pregnancy.
Auto-immune disorders (see microchimerism and scleroderma, lupus)
Bacterial Vaginosis
Cholestasis
Death
Depression
Infection
Incontinence
Ectopic Pregnancy
Fistula
Gestational Diabetes
HELLP Syndrome
Immune deficiency
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Miscarriage
Molar Pregnancy
Placenta Accreta
Placenta Previa
Preeclampsia
Pregnancy Induced Hypertension
Ruptured Uterus
Urinary Tract Infection
When people stop pretending that women aren't human and don't *really* suffer from pregnancy or that their suffering and pain is of no concern, then they can begin to use the words "health care" and "necessary" without sounding as if they are either wholly ignorant or willfully hateful and cruel.
Further, if you reduce health care to only those treatments that are necessary to stop a person from dying, then you've basically eliminated the vast majority of health care. That isn't really health care, it's health neglect.
You're talking about pregnancy, not abortion. As you know, the Stupak Amendmnet exempts abortions deemed necessary for the life of the mother.
Abortion, as a procedure, is always bad for the health of one of the lives involved, obviously, and is often bad for the other.
For instance: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6481289/Abortion-can-put-women-at-increased-risk-of-mental-health-problems-says-study.html
There is a personal responsibility component in play here. Why should taxpayers subsidize abortions when they are in most cases the result of poor personal decisions made by the mother and her partner? If we go down this road, we will have to pay for elective surgeries and other non-essential medical services for those that cannot afford them. In Britain, the taxpayers pay for tatoo removal. In San Francisco, the city government pays for sex changes. I am certain if someone shops around for doctors hard enough they will find a doctor willing to say that they must have a boob job or some off the way alternative medicine treatment to improve their overall health and mental wellbeing. Where will we draw the line with regard to what is and is not a legitimate procedure or service?
Why do you say 'the mother and her partner' ?
Why not say "the mother and the father " ?
I stand corrected. I should have written father.
No there isn't. This about a woman's ability to purchase insurance that covers abortions through a government supervised insurance exchange.
Please take a moment to get off your hyperventilating high horse and read.
no, it's really about having your cake and eating it too. those women that want total and absolute control of their bodies regardless that an evil man contributed to a pregnancy then want men to help contribute money to something that, again, women want them to have nothing whatsoever to do with.
It is not so simple. The House legislation says the HHS will be responsible for dictating what services and coverage is provided in the "qualified" insurance plan that all of us must fall under. If they add abortion coverage what is to prevent them from adding other non-essentail and elective services. Plus should abortion be covered under the qualified plan, we remove a powerful incentive for practicing safe sex since couples will realize they can have a "free" abortion should an unwanted pregnancy result from their irresponsible behavior.
I think the proper phrase is "government subsidized exchange".
No but you are wrong just totally wrong.
The language clearly states that it involves public subsidies..either in the govenment plan or private plans that take government subsidies.
In essence, abortion lovers want everyone to pay for their abortions.
That I cannot tolerate.
Why on Earth should I?
It's really about having your cake and eating it too. Those men that want total and absolute control over women's bodies regardless that it's not their body but hey, their sperm so they own the woman (just like if they ejaculate in a new truck, bam, it's automatically theirs!), then want women to pay all the costs of pregnancy and childbirth, don't want anything to do with raising the child, and don't want to pay any child support. /s
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL I WONDER IF THESE TWO LADIES REALLY WANT ANY HEALTHCARE BILL?
I THINK NOT....
A CONJECTURE COULD BE PUT FORWARD THAT THEY ARE JUST PAWNS BEING MOVED AROUND BY HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.
MAYBE THEY ARE ON THE TAKE?
LET'S SEE THEM PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT?
YESSSSSS!!!!!
As one of her constituents I know that Rep. Schakowsky has been a staunch supporter of universal affordable health care for more than a decade. This is not about receiving funding from big insurance companies. Believe me Rep. Schakowsky is the last person who would accept corporate insurance dollars. This is about progressive leaders being torn between a long hard battle for health care reform and the effort to protect women’s reproductive rights.
I have been a longtime believer in health care reform and I can’t tell you how many letters I’ve written and rallies I’ve attended to fight for those beliefs. However, I’ve also read the Stupak-Pitts amendment and I agree with these Congresswomen. This amendment is a step backwards for women’s reproductive freedoms and I can not support a bill that includes it.
Is it painful to have to step away from the legislation I’ve fought many months to see passed? Of course. However, the goal of health care reform was to provide comprehensive and affordable coverage for the most vulnerable members of American society. Any plan that limits a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her reproductive health does not accomplish this goal.
Either way the result would still be the same ...no new healthcare.
Perhaps we should write the President asking him to develop his own plan just in case?
Whether or not it covers abortion, vote against this bill! Give the free market a chance by making insurance companies subject to federal anti-trust laws and allowing competition across state boundaries first. Don't turn the whole country into Massachusetts!: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/health-care-speechwriter-for-edwards-obama-and-clinton-doesnt/
How about Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, France, England, Ireland, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Scotland, Singapore, Austria, and 20 other countries that spend less than we do but have better health outcomes?
Personally, I'm looking forward to the end of gender discrimination in insurance rates.
Did you even bother looking at my link?
Are you talking about gender discrimination in car insurance rates or health insurance rates?
Representatives, I am behind you 100%. I would vote the same way. Good luck to you.
Thank you
Rep. Schakowsky, you make me proud to live in your district! Thank you!
If low-income women, like myself as a student, cannot have access to abortions, then I hope you don't mind paying for a cost increase in welfare, childbirth hospital bills, school lunch vouchers, public schools costs, crime, prison costs, social workers, foster care, court administration, and other general costs of having an every increasing UNDERCLASS.
Or alternatively, if you don't believe in funding the above programs, I hope you don't mind the sight of STREET CHILDREN.
And don't you dare, for a second think I'm exaggeration. YOU WILL have to deal with women and the issues of reproduction one way or another.
This touches on the real arguments that should be made in this matter, not the silly argument that we are losing something we already have.
The real basis for supporting publicly funded abortion is to reduce the cost of unwanted births to society. The problem with that argument is that taken too far, it brings society down to a very low level, and ultimately supports the Regan argument against welfare mothers.
We absolutely need public funding for abortions, but that funding needs restrictions and rules - otherwise you are just supporting abortion as a form of birth control - it isn't, and that is way to caviler a position for any serious citizen to take, and merely supports the right wings arguments for limiting abortion.
A third of the women in this country will have an abortion in their lifetime. Less than twenty percent of abortions are billed to insurance companies.
Do your really think that allowing women to purchase insurance with abortion coverage through a government insurance exchange is going to make women run out to get abortions? Throw out their birth control with a sigh of relief?
I hope that you have a little more respect for women than that.
I stand corrected. It is one-sixth. See statistics here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
If that is the case, then I'd rather pay for sterilizations than abortions.
I would rather pay for abortions than sterilizations. How come I do not get a say in how MY tax dollars are spent?
Excellent post.
The people who support this amendment are the same ones who oppose any increase in funding for welfare programs, school lunch programs, etc.--in short, ANYTHING that would help the poor.
And then they claim to be Christians!
Also, they don't want anything but abstinence taught in schools. Never mind that offering kids real information might cut down on unwanted pregnancies, at least a little and cut down on the number of abortions.
Ultimately, I feel this amendment is just another way to keep women in their place, as second-classs citizens. To force us to take out an additional policy to pay for something that is already legal is ridiculous. Can you imagine if we forced men to do that, to pay for their Viagra? That would never happen.
Education, not welfare is the answer. When I was poor I never asked or wanted anything from the government and have made myself successful because of a motivation for self-reliance.
I've also known many women who have chosen to keep their babies as single mothers and have gone on to have successful lives without a government handout. I consider them first-class.
GreenEyes -- this post, frankly, is full of assumptions, distortions, stereotypes, and doesn't advance a real, fact-based argument of any kind. It works as a rant, but doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.
"Legal" and "covered" are two very different things. And I agree -- Viagra shouldn't be covered, either, along with cosmetic surgeries, etc.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
