The Stupak Setback

A clique of anti-choice Democrats in Congress joined forces with Republicans to write abortion access out of the House’s health care reform bill last Saturday. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) wants to force women to choose between affordable health insurance and abortion coverage, even if they pay for abortion coverage with their own money.

Pro-choice Democrats and women’s health activists are up in arms over the eleventh hour deal. Ellie Smeal of Ms. Magazine denounces the Stupak amendment as a betrayal of women:

Millions of poor and middle-class women would be denied abortion coverage and millions more would lose the coverage they already have, since 85 percent of private plans now cover abortion. Far from being abortion-neutral, the Stupak amendment is a giant step backward for women. It’s unacceptable. In the compromise to get the bill passed, women and their health-care rights were thrown under the bus.

Yesterday, The Pulse interviewed Jodi Jacobson, political director of RH Reality Check, about the implications of the Stupak amendment for reproductive choice in America. Jacobson explained that, if language from the Stupak amendment finds its way into the final health care bill, insurance companies would be forced to eliminate all abortion coverage if they wanted to participate in any aspect of the health care reform plan. Listen to the full interview here. (Note: there’s a slight delay before the audio starts.)

Jacobson calls the Stupak language a “monumental setback.” If an insurance plan accepts customers who take government subsidies, then nobody on that plan could have abortion coverage—not even those who were paying their whole premium out of pocket. In effect, the Stupak amendment would be “a total ban on public and private money for abortion coverage,” Jacobson said.

In TAPPED, Michelle Goldberg accuses the Democrats of “leaving women behind” in their rush to pass health care reform at any cost. Goldberg warns that if the amendment becomes law, Democrats will have handed the anti-abortion lobby its biggest victory since the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act.

In the Nation, Eyal Press argues that the Stupak amendment would be an especially cruel blow to poor women:

If this highly regressive amendment makes its way into the legislation that Barack Obama eventually signs, millions of less affluent women who obtain access to affordable health insurance will thus join the ranks of low-income women on Medicaid, most of whom live in states that don’t cover abortion procedures. The two-tiered system that dictates who in America has “choice” (more privileged women do, less affluent women do not) will be further entrenched.

Robin Marty of RH Reality Check wonders whether the Stupak amendment would apply to miscarriages as well as elective abortions. Sometimes, when a fetus dies in utero, doctors must surgically remove it. It’s the same procedure as an elective termination and it has the same name: Abortion. Last month, Marty lost a much-wanted pregnancy. Doctors laid out her options: a $1500 surgery, a $40 chemical abortion, or an interminable wait to expel the dead fetus naturally. Marty chose the surgery. She worries that the Stupak amendment would take that choice away from other women.

The House bill is not yet the law of the land. There is still time to strip the Stupak language out in conference (the merging process whereby the House bill is combined with whatever comes out of the Senate).

But will it actually get stripped out in the senate? Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) announced that “If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions, I won’t vote for it.”

On a conference call yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) told The Pulse that he was optimistic that a compromise could be worked out. “Ben Nelson said he wasn’t going to support a bill if it isn’t clear that government money won’t be used to fund abortions,” Specter said, “Well, we can make it clear that if someone wants to buy abortion coverage with her own money, she can do it.”

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Congressional Website of Congressman Stupak - press section
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium

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

Joyce M.

2:56AM PST on Nov 24, 2009

Isn't it fascinating that so many so call "Christians" are against their tax dollars paying for unwanted pregnancies, but have no problem with their tax dollars paying for actually killing real, live people in a war that is costing this country trillions of dollars. The "Bible" thumpers as usual have no common sense. And the majority did not vote on this at all. It was introduced by a Democrat of all things who was voted in last time by a majority who support the right of a woman to choose. I know this will not get through the thick skulls of those supposed "moral" people--but again, NOT YOUR BODY--NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, especially men !!!!! If "God" had wanted to produce children in another way, he would have, wouldn't he? As they say, sweep in front of your own door first, stay out of other people's business and spend your time trying to get this war to end where there are real people being killed.

send a green star

Heather A.

8:33PM PST on Nov 23, 2009

The Stupak amendment will not prevent any abortions. All it will do is increase the number of women who die or are gravely injured after getting an unsafe back-alley abortion because they can't afford a real one. This isn't an alarmist speculation; just look at how many women died this way before abortion was legal.

Women have the right to be sexually active, and while we can expect them to take preventive measures against unwanted pregnancies, the fact is that condoms can break and birth control can fail. These are not a woman's "mistake", they are potential risks that arise when she uses her right to sexuality. There are risks associated with traveling by car, walking down the street, and even breathing city air. Yet only in the case of a woman being sexually active are accidents considered her mistake - HERS, never mind her partner - and not covered by insurance. Let's not forget the fact that a good many of the women affected by the Stupak amendment will probably have to pay for the abortion on their own, despite the fact that two people contributed to the pregnancy. And what about cases of rape, where it was purely a man's fault? You can bet that a lot of women are going to be paying for that, too. What a step backwards for equality.

Janna S.

12:02PM PST on Nov 23, 2009

I don't support it

Michael M.

6:33AM PST on Nov 17, 2009

I neer liked abortion, thats my view. there's birth control, condomn, being responsible. if they cant have a child or just dont want it for whatever reason, then they must make better decisions. education is important in this manner, i dunno about if the mothers life may be in danger, like Hospitols and doctors have procedures to deal with such emergencies. victems of rape, should be allowed to choose

Debra H.

5:03PM PST on Nov 16, 2009

Government is: of the people, for the people, by the people. What part of majority vote do you not understand? Keep it up and we won't have free elections anymore.

You speak of this as if it is just run-of-the-mill politics and business. We, of Christian faith, speak of life and the right to not pay for killing it. If you’re so concerned about young single women not having a child, then help with abstinence. Our parents and grandparents abstained from sex so these problems would not come up. IF however, a young woman gets pregnant, there are thousands of resources to help her. I know, I work for one and when a woman comes in crying tears of joy that she’s so glad she did not abort because everyone was pushing her to do so; then God smiles that another one of His precious children get a chance to live, and love, just like you did!

Remember the majority voted for this! Let us keep our rights!

P H.

9:44AM PST on Nov 16, 2009

what this bill does in fact is keep women that have contributed from private plans from receiving abortions. This is about restricting the rights of women to make decisions about their own body not about the disbursement of public funds.

"Stupak had been threatening the health reform effort for a couple of months. His amendment bars coverage of abortion care in private plans that are part of an insurance exchange created by the federal government even where private premiums paid for abortion coverage and funds are kept separate.

In sum, this amendment robs women of the right to private insurance coverage of abortion care even with their own money paying the premiums. "

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blo

Robert S.

11:13PM PST on Nov 13, 2009

This amendment does not do away with the liberal's sacrament called abortion, it just prevents those of us that believe that it is murder from paying for it.

Steve R.

8:01PM PST on Nov 13, 2009

Kathleen Robertson - I think you're wrong.

A surgical procedure to remove a dead fetus would surely not be considered abortion? It would be medically necessary.

And abortion in a case where the fetus can be confirmed to be seriously deformed or impaired would surely fall into the same category as abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life.

Katz R.

6:02PM PST on Nov 13, 2009

Mary, what do you feel about paying for the welfare breeders now that are having babies to collect money for the children they abuse or don't take care of?There are a couple of big cases going on surrounding a couple of them right now. I have had way too many friends who have had abortions for whatever reasons an both they an the potential child are better off for it. Do you realize that also covers women who surgecally remove dead fetuses? that leaving those in to eliminate themselves naturally can cause toxicity to the poor woman who is carrying them? do you think someone should carry to term a severely impaired child that will need round the clock care the rest of it's life? who's footin those bills?

Lauren H.

4:59PM PST on Nov 13, 2009

Education
Birth Control
Condoms