The Connection Between Afghanistan and Abortion

In the President’s address on Afghanistan last night we heard a lot about sacrifice. We heard a lot about the strain on this country from being stretched too thin from trying to hold the economy up from total implosion while carrying on two wars that lack in any real, tangible mission other than fighting “terror”. For the first time we heard explicitly that our domestic and international agendas are intertwined and both are at the precipice. There’s no nice, easy way to put it. To clean up this mess it’s going to hurt. And that hurt starts now.

Without missing a beat, Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have seized on the nation’s growing fatigue and anxiety over Afghanistan and called for health care reform to be tabled until next year. The argument made by Graham and his colleagues is that we need that time and those resources to focus our efforts on Afghanistan.

To the contrary though, now is precisely the time to act.

In no uncertain terms the President made clear that we can’t afford our domestic agenda and continue to pay for the war effort. But the reality is our national infrastructure has reached such a point of crisis that we have no choice but to deal with it now. As the Senate opens debate on their version of health care reform, and as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) announces his intention to offer an amendment identical to Stupak we must act now to ensure that the sacrifices necessary in passing health care do not fall squarely on the backs of women.

For make no mistake about it, Stupak (and what we could probably call Stupak/Nelson) guarantees that millions of women would lose health benefits that they currently have and millions more would be lose access to benefits that are currently available others right now. And for those fortunate enough to have the means to buy private insurance on their own who want coverage that includes abortion-related services, Stupak makes this impossible.

The Stupak amendment prohibits any coverage of abortion in the public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy (so those purchasing coverage on their own, or employees in small businesses, both groups currently strangled by soaring premium costs) from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion.

That’s just the first way that Stupak stifles consumer choice in health care reform. It also prohibits insurance plans from offering ANY plan in the exchange that includes abortion coverage, even if a purchaser of that plan did not receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance. So, Stupak prohibits transactions involving access to a specific set of services offered to private individuals by private companies with no tangible connection to government involvement leaving insurance companies doing the ultimate in actuarial analysis. By participating in the exchange they have access to approximately 96 percent of all currently uninsured Americans. Or they offer a product that covers abortion services. What do you think they’ll chose?

That’s why we need to let Congress know now that we are all willing to sacrifice to make sure that meaningful health insurance becomes available and affordable for all Americans. But health insurance that does not cover abortion related services, services that extend far beyond our cultural default on the meaning of “abortion”, is not meaningful reform.

Today Planned Parenthood is holding a National Day of Action to lobby the Senate for reform that ensures women’s access to reproductive health care. Join them. Contact your Senators, particularly the Democrats, and let them know that reform that excludes women, categorically, from full access to necessary reproductive health care is in direct conflict with the stated mission of health care reform. Health care reform does not have to come at the cost of women’s health. But if we don’t act now, it might.

photo courtesy of the U.S. Army via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Tom W.

1:51PM PST on Dec 26, 2009

We should concentrate on preventative medicine NOT cures.
Abortions are preventable and we should not have to pay for the irresponsible sexual play times of others.
It is shameful and selfish to prevent health coverage to all those in need because a minority want to abuse their sexual desires and then have others pay for the consequences of their selfish acts and do all to stop a needed health plan for all unless they are covered for their irresponsibility.
Cancers are not preventable under the world conditions we are forced to live in with genetically contaminated food and water.
It is falsehood to pretend women are denied their rights when they can prevent having children rather than abortions on demand.
Abortions are nothing more than premeditated murder.
If you have no control then just keep your knees together.

send a green star

Mervi R.

4:28PM PST on Dec 20, 2009

Wow, had no idea these things are connected...

Celene C.

2:04PM PST on Dec 9, 2009

Wow, I never thought that Afghanistan could be linked to healthcare. A interesting and revealing article!

anon a.

11:27AM PST on Dec 9, 2009

A relatively common medical procedure should not be unavailable for some women and not others.

Krystl J.

6:46AM PST on Dec 8, 2009

If a man begin to turn his blind eyes to a reality, the reality begin to turm its blind eyes to him. BRIE
By JarKry

6:40AM PST on Dec 8, 2009

If a man begin to turn his blind eyes to a reality, the reality begin to turn its blind eyes to him. BRIE
By JarKry

Richard N.

5:07PM PST on Dec 5, 2009

????

Bonnie W.

3:50AM PST on Dec 5, 2009

to add the antique table I already have- not to add something I MAY decide to purchase at some time in the future. Especially if it was additional $$! Stupak's big (lie) is that even if the other insurances in the Exchange don't offer abortion services (which per his Amendment they could not since people using affordability credits could purchase any of the insurances), women who "want" this can always purchase a rider to the existing policies. But there are no guarantees riders would be offered & even if they were of course they would be more expensive. Individuals & couples would have to decide if they could afford even more $$ for insurance on the off-chance the woman (or post-pubescent daughter) MIGHT need to avail herself of abortion services. I think instead of including ANY Fundamentalist Amendments, Congress should reevaluate Hyde, since (they) brought it up. This will, after all, negatively affect MANY more people than now. I can see the need to repeal Hyde altogether. Or, if not, maybe another check box on our 1040's to go with the insurance coverage question; "Check YES if you want a portion of your taxes to go to pay for..." etc, etc. If not repeal, then this is the only other ethical thing to do! Public funds are for ALL the public, regardless of their religion or choices of conscience. And we all are responsible for taxes, right? It would be far more ethical to repeal Hyde & fund comprehensive health coverage than to pay for more war in Afghanistan

2:58AM PST on Dec 5, 2009

abortions can even be performed do. As to the comments regarding which abortions are "medically necessary," that is (for most rational people) a medical decision- not a "moral" or "social" one. One can also have "medically advised" procedures- and ALL of these procedures are subject to the final decision of the individual, based on individual circumstances. Most insurances that are at least half-way decent, even cover certain things that are not in the strictest sense medically necessary: well-baby visits, health screenings, prescribed contraceptives, sexuality enhancement meds. (like Viagra) & PG term. services (some real good plans even include fertility treatments!). My personal feeling (and I am not alone in this) is that using a governmental body (either Federal OR State) to financially (or legally) coerce women to remain PG is as immoral & unethical as coercing her to have sex! One of the primary focuses of the Health Care coverage and Affordability Act is to assure that people will not be discriminated against because of preexisting conditions or due to recidivism. Now, women are many times charged more for insurance because they MAY get PG or have additional health problems related to reproductive issues. The "Fundamentalist Amendments" (Stupak etc) again institutes a practice of charging more (for "riders" i.e.) for coverage for something a woman MAY need because she is female & of reproductive age! In general, I would get a rider on my house insurance

2:06AM PST on Dec 5, 2009

1st of all, the "Public Option" is not simply for people who might be eligible for some sort of affordability credit to purchase insurance. It is a government NEGOTIATED plan that anyone (eventually) will have the right to purchase- same as ANY OTHER INSURANCE in the Exchange. So, people purchasing Insurance thru the Public Option, can be using only their own funds or some might be eligible and receiving affordability credits AT SOME %. If the law goes in the way it is (now) worded in the Senate Bill, there has to be at least 2 levels of Plan types in the Public option & each Plan offered in the exchange has to at least meet Basic plan requirements. PG Termination services DO NOT have to be offered in all plans but if they are offered, accounting mechanisms will be implemented to assure that NO Federal Funding- via affordability credits- will be used to pay for that portion of the insurance coverage (the portion is computed on an actuarial basis and there will be 3 separate, standardized accounting mechanisms to track funds). So the Stupak, et al, amendments ARE NOT about Federal funding. This is about extending and EXPANDING the HIGHLY discriminatory practices under the Hyde Amendment- and to significantly more women and girls. It is an attempt to restrict and effectively eliminate payment for PG termination services- in the same way that "waiting periods" do; in the same way that "informed consent regulations" do; in the same way that restricting where (con't)