Wednesday July 9, 2008, 5:19 am
Poison Pill Slipped Into Indian Health Bill
Pro-life amendment used to derail legislation
By Michelle Chen
When it comes to their health, American Indian women face extraordinary barriers — from high disease risks to increased incidents of sexual violence. They now face another obstacle, rooted in the political battleground of abortion.

The Senate’s recent passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was a breakthrough for advocacy groups that have long pushed for the bill’s provisions — new programs, improved facilities and funding for the Indian Health Services (IHS) system, which serves about 1.9 million people nationwide.

But the victory is dampened by a poison pill provision slipped in by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that explicitly restricts abortions under IHS programs. The amendment was approved along with the bill in February. As In These Times went to press, it was unclear whether the House would vote on companion legislation carrying a similar amendment.

Speaking at a Right to Life rally in January, Vitter boasted that his amendment put “clear, strong, pro-life language in that Indian healthcare bill.”

In fact, the amendment mostly replicates an older, more general ban on abortion funding under federal health programs, known as the Hyde Amendment. IHS is already subject to those restrictions, which allow federal financing for abortion only in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the pregnant woman’s life.

Still, Vitter’s initiative entrenches Hyde’s strictures more firmly by directly changing IHS’s long-term governing statute. Enacted in the late 1970s, Hyde is subject to annual revision when renewed through the appropriations process. It mainly applies to Medicaid, but anti-abortion groups have lobbied to expand its reach in other areas, such as the military and federal prison health systems.

Opponents say Vitter has tethered crucial health programs to an anti-abortion agenda and brazenly targeted Native women’s reproductive rights.

“It’s a race-based amendment, because it’s trying to reduce our right to access abortion more than any other race of women in this country,” says Charon Asetoyer of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center (NAWHERC), a research and advocacy organization.

Critics point to slight differences in the wording of the Vitter amendment that could tighten existing restrictions — for instance, the limitation of the incest exception to women under 18.

Although some states offer separate funding for abortions deemed medically necessary for overall health, Hyde has generally succeeded in raising barriers to abortion for poor women. By making abortion prohibitively costly, the funding restrictions have historically led many women to have abortions later, at greater medical risk, or not at all, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health policy group.

The consequences of abortion funding restrictions are uniquely dire in Native communities, where women are disproportionately poor, more likely to be sexually assaulted, and acutely limited in their options for dealing with unplanned pregnancy.

“Native women are so much more vulnerable on so many levels,” says Sarah Deer, a Minnesota-based victim advocacy legal specialist with the Tribal Law & Policy Institute, “from health problems, to being victims of violence, to housing. We’re the ones suffering the most on a lot of different issues.”

According to research by NAWHERC, IHS facilities performed only a handful of abortions over a two-decade period. But the Center has also found that IHS staff routinely failed to properly enforce the Hyde Amendment’s protections for assault survivors. Meanwhile, state health records indicate that Native women in North and South Dakota and Alaska are over-represented among abortion cases compared to their overall state populations, suggesting that many are resorting to private abortion providers.

This isn’t the first time the abortion issue has ensnared Indian Country. In South Dakota, which has an especially high Native population, Asetoyer and other activists campaigned successfully in 2006 against a proposal for a statewide ban on abortions. A similar initiative is up for a referendum vote this November.

But since the Vitter amendment would not dramatically change current abortion policies at IHS, the bigger concern is that it will sink the Native health bill altogether, killing prospects for a much needed funding infusion.That would still be a victory for Vitter, who voted against the bill even with his amendment.

To Kitty Marx, legislative director of the National Indian Health Board, an advocacy group representing Native communities, the health of nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives is being subsumed in a political proxy battle.

“[This] is an Indian healthcare bill — written by Indians for Indians,” she says. “If Congress wants to have a national debate on abortion, then have it on a national bill.”

Asetoyer says Vitter’s initiative creates a cruel dilemma for activists focused on the intersection between reproductive rights and Native health issues. She continues to support the bill despite the amendment: “We just may have to eat this one, because we cannot use this to stop the bill from going through. Otherwise, we’d end up with no healthcare at all.”

Sunday July 13, 2008, 11:24 pm

I cannot write what I think because it would violate Care2 policy.

Thank you Peggy.

Sunday July 13, 2008, 11:54 pm

Thanks, Peggy. And thanks to Marian for passing this along -- I'd missed it also.

Congress is totally corrupt. No governmental body that has voted for and funded crimes against humanity can call itself legitimate or claim to represent the people of the United States. Congress has no business making laws and no responsible person will go to the polls in November because all voting does is give them our mandate to continue doing whatever the hell they want to do.

Monday July 14, 2008, 2:18 am
How absolutely insidiously evil.

Monday July 14, 2008, 2:36 am
And yes, Davis Vitter, his name is on the phone list and "phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

Background:

"As a strong believer in the dignity and sanctity of all human life, I stand with many other Louisianans in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Together, we work daily to turn the tide toward respecting, protecting, and dignifying innocent human life.

To this end, I have supported all pro-life measures before Congress, including:

Supporting an immediate ban on partial birth abortions.
Expanding tax credits and other support for adoption.
Authoring legislation that would absolutely prohibit taxpayer funding to private providers of abortion services.
Supporting a full ban on human cloning.
Authoring legislation to codify safety measures designed to protect the health of women who use RU-486, responding to the misguided and politicized approval of the drug.
Participating in National Adoption Awareness Month.
Supporting legislation requiring that pregnant mothers be provided information on their unborn child's ability to experience pain 20 weeks after fertilization.
Supporting legislation prohibiting the transportation of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion."

Copied verbatim.

From U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA): http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation/issue&ID=4e6022c5-5ff1-4d9b-b7bb-06f085f91c61


TY, botyfltiger e.

Monday July 14, 2008, 3:40 am

Good catch, Jim.

Don't know about anyone else, but the next time I want an expert on human rights who is concerned with the sanctity of life, I won't waste time contacting human rights groups -- I'll just ask the madam of the nearest brothel which johns she recommends. ROFLMAO (Sorry folks, sort of an inside joke -- you really had to be there.)

Monday July 14, 2008, 4:11 am
It is such a difficult problem Given that
1We are over populated and killing ourselves that way amongst others.
2Also that unwanted kids get a pretty bad deal on the whole and unwanted kids with poverty in their support system get a worse one.
3 Also that kids are in any case dying from starvationat the rate of more than one per three seconds now
4 One in twelve children go to bed hungry even in the USA now
5 There is a world wide food shortage
6 The birth of any child from any male female paiting has the potential to sixty million permutations so getting yer own baby even if you want it is a lottery as to how it will turn out.
7 In third world countries apart from being harvested on the street dfor organs or kidnapped for that or slavery kids on the streets only contribute too the economy as underpaid labour or prison occupants and desease spreaders.to boost hospitals and undermine the Tourist trade
* It has been generally proved that someone really desperate for an abortion will find an illegal one anyway and social workers those providing cheap graves and overworked emergency sections of hospitals are the only people to benefit if they do.
9Even Indian families are probably two income and therefore lactation and childcarein a very poor fanmily can interfere with food for everyone
ETC Putting these things together and factoring in that we probably will have a depression or adeep recession soon - Why not allow abortion.

Monday July 14, 2008, 5:29 am
An excerpt: "“It’s a race-based amendment, because it’s trying to reduce our right to access abortion more than any other race of women in this country,” Shaking my head!

Monday July 14, 2008, 5:51 am
The U.S. government has been concerned with American Indian reproduction for a very long time. In the 70's, they used forced sterilization, with as many as 1 in 3 American Indian woman (of the Lakotah) being made sterile, so to me this new policy is almost "benign" by comparison with past actions. Given that many American Indian children are actually to this day still taken from their homes and offered through for-profit adoption agencies, one wonders if this is really a "pro-industry" bill...

Monday July 14, 2008, 6:56 am
Just another way our government is targeting Native Americans.

noted, thank you, Botyfltiger E.

Monday July 14, 2008, 8:15 am
Just another color of the way our government is targeting WOMEN.

Monday July 14, 2008, 11:05 am
I had no idea about this...thanks for posting. I am going to blog about this. I wonder how many other people are also unaware.

Monday July 14, 2008, 2:13 pm
This is terrible and very disgusting! People weren't thinking clearly to come up with this! How many people are unaware this law? The people didn't vote for it and that's who it affects!

Tuesday July 15, 2008, 4:03 am
This administration has done this ever since 2006, maybe before. They slide something into a inocuous bill of some sort which on it's own, would cause controversy. It is terrible, I agree. As far as targeting women is concerned, that really isn't anything new. Noted with disgust.

Thursday July 17, 2008, 12:57 am
noted