The Truth About the Capps Amendment

Enacting comprehensive health insurance reform is no easy task - if it was, we'd have done it decades ago. Making it more difficult is the blatant misinformation being spread by some opponents of reform as well as people who perhaps just don't know better. A case in point is the House health reform bill's provision continuing the policy of restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. There is a lot of misinformation about this provision, some of it probably the result of honest mistakes and some of it based on outright fabrications.

In an attempt to try to find a compromise for dealing with abortion services in the legislation, I offered an amendment that would essentially continue this ban - even though I personally oppose the Hyde Amendment - that was supported by Energy and Commerce Committee Members whose records span the pro-life and pro-choice spectrum. Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation.

Unfortunately many -- from politicians to pundits -- misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent my amendment as a significant departure from current law. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, many independent fact checkers and even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service have found the amendment preserves the status quo in federal abortion policy.

As I mentioned earlier, under my amendment no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions that are not allowed by current law (the Hyde Amendment, which makes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman). The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders' premiums, whether the policyholder is covered by a private plan or the public option.

My amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services. In fact, my amendment goes beyond current law in this regard. Currently, existing statute known as the "Weldon Amendment" prohibits the government from discriminating against health providers and insurance companies who refuse to perform or pay for abortions. My amendment extends that to ensure that no private insurance plan operating in the Exchange may discriminate against health providers who refuse to perform abortions.

My amendment also ensures that in each region of the country, there is at least one plan in the Health Exchange that offers abortions services but also one plan in the Health Exchange that does not offer abortion services. This actually gives consumers who object to participating in a plan that covers abortion and are getting coverage through the Exchange a choice of insurance coverage greater than what most Americans have in the current employer-based health insurance market. Today, nearly 90 percent of employer-sponsored private health insurance plans cover abortion services.

Some people have gone so far as to claim my amendment would mandate abortion coverage in all insurance plans. This is simply untrue. My amendment specifically prohibits abortion from being included as part of the essential benefits package. No one - not the Secretary of Health and Human Services nor the Health Benefits Advisory Committee - can make abortion a part of the essential benefits package.

Private plans participating in the Exchange can choose to provide coverage for abortion or they can choose not to. And while the Secretary may choose to allow the public plan to cover abortions not allowed by the Hyde Amendment, coverage for those services must be paid for with segregated private funds. No Federal funds may be used. Importantly, while opponents of the bill's provision make much ado about the idea of segregating funds, it's hardly a new concept: the 17 states that currently cover abortion in their Medicaid programs already do it by only paying for those services with state dollars, which are kept separate from federal funds.

Having worked on public health issues most of my life I understand the strong beliefs generated by choice issues. But having strongly held beliefs doesn't give one license to distort the facts at hand. My amendment offers a common ground solution to a very challenging policy question - namely how do we deal with abortion services in health reform legislation. By adhering to current law which prohibits Federal funds from being used to cover abortions other than in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the woman, we have found a way to move forward in our efforts to protect and provide health insurance for millions of Americans without being sidetracked by re-debating the issue of abortion.

Congresswoman Lois Capps represents California's 23rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Prior to serving in Congress she worked for 20 years as a public school nurse and health advocate.

Comments

[MRS S]

AS someone who believed that abortion was a right, I am beginning to see what the pro-lifers are talking about. In my counseling of women, I am seeing a trend -women who had abortions who are troubled, scarred, let's say "detached" from life. They have problems with relationships. Sometimes, all their relationships.

So I have been thinking-and this is my conclusion after 8 years of counseling -I believe that abortion is abusive to women. Let's totally forget about the fetus/child. Women are being tormented by these procedures, sometimes months , sometimes years after.

Then, I realize that the people benefiting from these procedures, are capitalists! Planned Parenthood, doctors, clinics, are all making money from women who are having a crisis-hormonally challenged, (I am a mom and I know pregnant!), unhappy about their irresponsible behavior in not using birth control. hmmmmm.....

Then I see women who are mad about being the person who gets pregnant. What about the guy? Maybe for every abortion we should cut off something of the father's....just kidding.
And then there are the religious -moslum, christian, jews, who have problems with abortion because of their faith-maybe they are the smart ones after all! They aren't pandering to the capitalists to abuse their women. hmmmmm......just some ponderings.

[LetsTalk24]

Rep Capps,

I am one of those having difficulties clearly understanding your proposal, particularly the following sentence:
"The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders' premiums, whether the policyholder is covered by a private plan or the public option."

What are the private funds a reference to??

[amber15]

funds generated by the policyholders' premiums,

[LetsTalk24]

My health insurance plan (Blue Cross) never generates any private funds that I can use. I'm still in the dark here

[JIzin]

The status quo SUCKS.
Abortion is a legal right women of this country have.

There SHOULD be discrimination against institutions that dont provide this essential women's health service!!

To all the Christo-Fascists who want to out law abortion, you should instead put your energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And just a hint: you dont do that by teaching abstinence only and censoring factual sexual information from children.

[lcdbsez]

Rep. Capps --

I agree with other posters here, who want to see more common sense from our legislators, and less caving to the American Taliban -- a.k.a. the anti-choice fanatics.

Abortion is legal -- helllooooo! If it's OK to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize Viagra, then it should be OK to spend them to remedy the consequences of its use.

[cheeriogirl]

Somewhat O.T., but does anyone know if birth control will be covered in any of the current proposals?
Thanks!

[camanokat]

All well and good, but there needs to be a provision to pay for birth control and sex ed.

[Ale]

Representative Capps.
It seems that bills such as this and the general retreats we are seeing on the health care front are all an attempt to reach out to Republicans with reasonable compromises, how has that been working for you?

PLEASE stop trying to reach out or appease fanatics whose only objective is seeing health care or any major bill from Democrats fail.

[jimrs6]

Why should an elective procedure be covered at all?

[karinova]

You do know that HAVING kids is elective, right?

[meko]

When they're both out-of-pocket, abortion is always the less expensive choice.

I suppose one could argue that birth control, abortion and childbirth are all elective, as they all relate to the choice to have sex. Of course the same could be said for many conditions that are strongly correlated with behavior such as diabetes and hear disease. The important difference is that that a fat white guy is never a hussy.

[Moonbeam51]

Sane people understand that public funding for abortions is not part of the health care bill. But so what if it was? Paying for things one doesn’t like is part of living in a society. I don't want to pay for a war in Iraq, but that's the price I pay. I don't want my tax dollars paying to protect Dick Cheney, but that's the price I pay. Everyone pays for things they don't like or support. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but as soon as there is a hurricane or a fire or even a pothole on their street, people sure are happy to have the government there to help them out. And as far as abortion being a moral issue, my taxes go to pay for the death penalty, even though I am morally against it.

[rudyinbama]

This is ridiculous.
Pacifists pay taxes for bombs that kill people, don't they?
Why the endless Special Treatment for Anti-Choice Terrorists?

[TLV]

We simply need to start working at changing the law that allows funding for other types of killing. I vehemently disapprove of policy which employs violence. I truly do NOT believe that one solves anything through the death and destruction that wars bring. I don't care how many 9/11s there have to be, hatred and killing do not stop killing. In the case of abortion, however, the law allows for it.

Do I agree with it? Sometimes. Do I think the government should cover the cost? Never.

While I do not think I would have ever had an abortion as a young woman, I WOULD certainly have one now as a fifty-plus woman. The law makes an exception for death in the case of abortion and leaves it up to the only people who can get pregnant to decide if they want to end the pregnancy - and that would be WOMEN. While I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control, ending a pregnancy that does not fit into a woman's life should never be a cause for further violence, hatred, or condemnation against women or the people who love and support them in that decision. Love her, care for her, educate her so she does not have another abortion, but do not hurt her or the laws which protect her.

[MikeDu]

Meeting the lunatic fringe right halfway means you only go 'hard' right. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Period. People with insurance don't shell out a thousand a month in premiums so some Pentacostalist can tell us what our insurance will not cover.

[SimJack]

I understand this as a compromise issue but a bill passed without abortion coverage is a huge step compared to no bill at all. Sometimes you have to pick the fights you know you can win. IMHO abortion should be covered because it is a health care issue. Furthermore, proper health and sex education be taught at an age appropriate level to bring people to a 21st century understanding of pregnancy and STD prevention. This includes easy access to the morning-after pill, without parental consent if need be, among other known safe methods.

An ounce of prevention - this society has a duty to perform by educating its young people, not turn a cowardly and blind eye because the topic is too difficult, uncomfortable or inconvenient. There are a lot of people who raise the issues of debt or environmental destruction we will leave to our children but this is one issue where we can do something the right way and right now. No one's first choice is to have an abortion as a means of birth control, it's usually a last desperate resort the decision for which is usually being made under duress by a terrified, ill-equipped, undereducated teenage girl and the father of her child who have no one to turn to, including or especially their parents, for other options, support and guidance in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy or case of an STD infection.

[meko]

If they get no abortion coverage, the next will be no birth control coverage.

[AngelaQuattrano]

Wow, we just got rid of that Bush regulation that permitted pharmacists to lecture women that they shouldn't use birth control and permitted doctors to refuse to provide reproductive health services to women if they believe that it should be left to God whether women live or die.

Now an amendment for the government to pay unlimited dollars to doctors and other health care providers so they can sit on their hands and refuse to provide abortions. It sounds like you, Lois, are looking for a way to make abortion even harder to get for real American women while funneling money to the wealthy who will do nothing for it. What am I missing here?

[meko]

It doesn't look as if you are missing much.

[ynp7]

How about the get the hell over it amendment? It's not any of anyone else's business if someone wants to get an abortion. Grow up, children.

[stop the politics]

Rep. Capps, I am confused. In your opening paragraph you write "Making it more difficult is the blatant misinformation being spread by some opponents of reform as well as people who perhaps just don't know better. A case in point is the House health reform bill's provision continuing the policy of restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions." However, you later write "My amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services."

Neither the current law nor the proposed law prohibits the spending of federal money on abortions. Your amendment will make it clear that abortion services are not required.

It appears that people who say that the healthcare law will require hospitals and doctors to perform abortions are spreading as much blatant misinformation as those who say the healthcare law will not pay for abortions.