Representative Bart Stupak, D-Mich, apparently didn’t get the memo from President Obama that this is a health care bill not an abortion bill.
Obama unequivocally stated that even though it is legal in this country to have an abortion, no government funding is used, or will be used for a woman to get an abortion.
Pretty clear. But, Stupak feels the need to muddy up the waters and try to circumvent the law and the Supreme Court Ruling that gives women the right to choose.
Stupak’s amendment, included in the House bill last week, prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance plan. It would prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies. If women want to obtain coverage for an abortion, they would have to use their own money and be willing to buy a separate add-on plan. Abortion –rights supporters called it a “de facto” abortion ban. (The Hill)
Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America and other abortion-rights advocates say the amendment would make it harder — in some cases perhaps impossible — for millions of women to have health insurance that covers abortion. They depict it as one of the gravest assaults ever on American women's reproductive rights. (AP)
"This is a middle-class abortion ban that would impact millions of middle-class women," added Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's saying to them, 'You can't get full coverage that meets your needs.'" (AP)
Interestingly enough, Politico reported the insurance policy the Republican National Committee offers its employees covers elective abortion. All GOP representatives supported Stupak’s amendment. Apparently a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Women already pay more for health insurance than men, up to as much 49% more than men. Why? Because women get pregnant and have babies.Does that mean once a woman is pregnant, she has a pre-existing condition, therefore increasing her insurance premiums? It does mean, according to a Humana health insurance vice president, “Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.”
In other words, they are charging women more because they MAY have health risks later in life. Men don’t have “other health risks later in life"?
What about the dangers of an erection that may last 4-6 hours later in life if you use a male enhancement drug such as Viagra or Cialis? And yet, insurance pays for those medications. A man MAY have prostate problems when he gets older, which may require treatment with medication and surgery. So, using the logic of Humana, men should also have higher health insurance premiums. Perhaps we should ban those drugs from any public health care policies.
If men want to obtain coverage for an erection, they would have to use their own money and be willing to buy a separate add-on plan. That could prevent the dangers of long, painful erections, which could result in an unwanted pregnancy, possibly requiring an abortion.
Women don’t plan on an abortion. Women don’t have sex, or get raped or hope for an extremely deformed fetus so they can have an abortion. However, in the event any of those unfortunate events happen, they should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy, which is the law. They should also have the choice to buy coverage for the procedure.
Men specifically buy male enhancement drugs, which you will recall are covered by insurance, to have sex. If you suggested those drugs be banned by government health care reform there would be a hue and cry by men. A case of “we don’t want the government to control our health care, but we want the government to control women’s health care.” Clearly, a case of hypocrisy.
What would be the cost of an insurance rider with abortion coverage? I’m guessing pretty high. According to AP when Kristin Binns of WellPoint, Inc, which oversees health plans serving 35 million Americans, was asked, she said, “It’s impossible for the insurance industry at this stage to estimate how much such riders would cost and the extent to which they might be offered.”
Of course the insurance companies are not going to commit to a cost. These are the same companies that charge women higher premiums already because they MAY have health risks later in life due to pregnancies. This is a golden opportunity for them to make up for any lost revenue from public option competition.
Cha-ching.
Stupak has been strutting around the Hill like a Banty cock, bragging “There will be hell to pay if the Democrats fight my amendment.”
It appears hell is on its way in the form of women on the Hill. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, circulated a letter with the signatures of 40 other House lawmakers vowing to vote against any conference report that still contains the amendment.
In addition, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions. (The Hill)
“It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices,” Wasserman Schultz said. (The Hill)
Republicans will seek similar language in the Senate bill, while several centrist Democrats are already wavering on the bill.
The fight is on, as well it should be. This abortion amendment is a distraction from the core issue, that of health care reform, and quite frankly, Stupak’s amendment stinks.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 60 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. Her column is part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children and is the proud grandmother of three.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com, The Obama Watch at theobamawatch.gather.comor her home page here, www.ccabot.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 99
We're paying hell now.... fFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
"It’s the worst restriction to access since the passage of Hyde in 1976 and it disproportionately disadvantages low income women who can’t afford to buy their own health insurance coverage. Stupak is an attempt by the pro-life movement to use health reform as a vessel to ration access to reproductive health services. Dionne is dismissing these concerns by arguing that women (especially poor women) should “learn to live with” health reform reform that leaves them behind."
I remember what it is ,every chemical Dow ever made.
Did you see the secret leaking fool from congress that wants to be their next governor?
Wonder how fast he would object to a bill limiting a man's right to get a woman pregnant? If my memory serves me right aren't most who support the ban on abortion also against the use of a condom or teaching children safe sex? Hmmm...
:O\
Stupak is too stupid to realize he is being used, but enjoying his moment in the limelight. I don't think he will be too pleased with his moment in the history books as an idiot, however.
Talk about f-g hypocrites. First, they scream about the government not following the law and getting into people's private healthcare decisions, then they go and sponsor an amendment like this that does exactly just that.
I'd like to personally give this Stunard a piece of my mind. And then do a little quick operation on him so he would know more personally what a woman feels like.
I am correct. I don't like them either.
Even persons who share my view are of the opinion that there are cases where we would not have a problem with an abortion being done. For instance, if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, let the mother choose.
Religious conservatives (and stooges like Stupak) want to be able to tell that woman she has absolutely no recourse but to carry that fetus to term -- even if it means a future of poverty, illness, and/or death. None of them trusts anyone else to make such a momentous decision on their own; they want to dictate what (if any) decisions can be made. Then these same folks go out and protest "the government" limiting their own freedom.
One of my college instructors commented that the more conservative a culture is, the more that culture oppresses women. It breaks my heart that our culture is constantly proving him right.
I work in the insurance industry and one complaint is that the premium and cover is decided by men. That just may just be a very valid complaint. What's the situation there?
Thank you. Please spread the word about this novel and the ideas it explains. I cannot help but believe that if you read it all you will see that adopting the solution will greatly reduce sin and suffering in the world.
Yuck.
Since they can't, women must bear the burden of all those things and much more. In this country, we don't even hold men accountable for the children they father; if they just cross a state line, they're off the hook.
Ignorant pukes that do things like this are not safeguarding the nation's interests. They are only serving their own limited views and trying to force the same on all of us.
Comments:
I would not muddy the water with
a) Male and female rates. I'm sure those are arrived at statistically and are probably valid.
b) The "Viagra" argument- medicare does NOT pay for Viagra. Some private plans I know cover 4 pills a month, which I may use as a piece in a humor column, but also irrelevant here.
The abortion point is strong enough on it's own. It is diluted, IMHO, by using the above points.
You are correct. The abortion amendment is a distraction on the healthcare bill. I wish congress would grow up. This is like tagging pork items onto non-related bills.
There is an argument that as abortions are "elective" in a sense, then shouldn't other elective surgeries be included, like in vitro fertilization and enlarging certain body parts and reducing others?
Ah, but I am muddying the waters myself :)
But you aren't exactly known (by me) for your empathy, Marilyn.
I grew up with a boy who had a cleft pallet that was repaired when he was an infant, but required surgical correction until he was grown so he could maintain a normal appearance.
As it stands now, people who are fortunate enough to have insurance are routinely denied care for ridiculous reasons. Is that what you're thinking of when you say "panels"?
There are many babies that are born with two sets of sexual organs. I suppose the right will want them either put to death or whatever operations they require will be banned from insurance coverage.
I'm beginning to really despise these people. They just find new ways to hate each day.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when these jerks have to face Him and try to explain themselves.
Democrats are much more diverse and understand empathy.
Adolph Hitler:
Adolph Hitler was the most famous, anti-abortionist of all time. He was the ultimate no choice advocate. He was an outspoken and violent opponent of abortion rights for Aryan women. An Aryan woman who had an abortion in Hitler's fascist state was subject to execution. In his speeches Adolph Hitler promoted his despotism in the name of God and in the name of Aryan supremacy and caused about 12,000,000 people to die.
_______________________________________
Joseph Stalin:
Stalin was the Russian dictator from 1929 to 1953. In the name of atheism, murdered 70,000,000 of his own citizens to maintain his power.
_______________________________________
Saddam Hussein:
Hussein was the infamous dictator of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. He ran a ruthless regime that treated women as property that denied every type of right to its women including abortion. He murdered about 2,000,000 Iraqi citizens in the name of his God.
_______________________________________
Ayatollah Khomeini:
Khomini was the dictator of Iran from 1979 to 1989. Ayatollah Khomeini was a staunch anti-abortionist who forced motherhood onto Iranian women. The following is just one example of his Iranian justice: In 1983, he publicly executed 10 Baha'i women, for the crime of "Believing in a faith that encourages equality between men and women and for organizing women." These women included Iran's first woman physicist, a concert pianist, and three teenage college students.[1] Khomeini committed his mindless murders in the name of God. Even today, the Iranian government still pushes forced motherhood onto its citizens.
RNC Ditches Employee Abortion Coverage
That's the thing about abortion. People say they would never, ever get one, but since they can't see into the future, they should shut up and leave this legal procedure out of their rantings.
Children have rights to yell out abuse and this right is screaming from the womb of mothers that don't want to go through these added on problems. Abortion, well maybe that is just a word that is too harsh for the human ears. So many people are against it and it is a huge problem in this USA. The comments you have as fare as the insurance companies placing it as an add on should go well for this is another way they can get, not only women but couples to pay more money on health insurance.
The government will never go for this because it would rather support issues like homosexual marriage and other immoral acts against humanity but they say that abortion is murder is that too not immoral? Cheri, this is the hardest thing to bring to law but if the women who are married or having an affair with these men who don't support abortion or women who are single in government get raped, have something done where they know that deformity is the destiny of their child get in a situation where abortion is the only solution maybe it will become the law that insurance company's add a clause that allows women to have abortion coverage.
GOD bless you and your family... very good article.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation says that more than a month before the abortion provider Dr. George R. Tiller was shot and killed, it received an anonymous letter warning about the man now charged in the case. Bridget Patton, an F.B.I. spokeswoman, said the letter warned that the suspect, Scott Roeder, would physically harm Dr. Tiller or any other abortion provider. The letter turned out to have been written by a man who is in the midst of a custody battle with Mr. Roeder. Ms. Patton says the agency found no specific, credible threat in the letter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14brfs-FBIWASWARNED_BRF.html
You are right, many abortion doctors are men who risked harm to themselves, family & staff to provide a much needed service. I have read & heard what some of them say about giving abortions. It is not done on a whim, nor taken lightly. It is done because of extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, zealots see only their own agenda, not of those in need of abortions.
But now we have two competing groups, each large enough to halt passage of this bill. I don't see a lot of room for compromise, and there's no credible point of attack to make either of 'em sit down, shut up and do what they oughta.
Exactly.
Also, those who object to government control of health care don't seem to be logically consistent when they want to control womens' health care and dictate abortion policies. How would male citizens feel if the federal government mandated that males use birth control and have vasectomies? How would men feel if the penalty for causing a woman to conceive and give birth would be to pay for all the childcare costs involved up to the age of 18? Isn't that the kind of burden placed on women by opposing their right to choose whether or not give birth? The Far Right, if given the extreme remedy, would ban consensual sex for all unmarried persons out of some unmerciful code of ethics that forgets that people in the throes of passion often make mistakes. On the other hand, procreation requires personal responsibility. It could be argued that pregnancy is a joint responsibility of father and mother and not the responsibility of the state with its attached legal requirements upon the couple. Linking abortion rights to health care rights is going to a supremely difficult political matter. Especially when there is no consensus about social ethics and personal rights.
In any case, I understand your point. I just disagree.
While I agree with you about that assumption, the reality is that this has been true in every instance of which I am aware. Makes it easy to assume and jump to conclusions, does it not?
Not quite. If we are going to offer health care to all Americans, unborn children need to be included. Their right to life has been terminated by law, but that law does not require taxpayers to pay for the taking of their lives. In a time when heroes are sparse, Bart Stupak's courage and conscientious work shines like a beacon.
It would be nice if there was some way for a father to take over gestation duties if the woman chose an abortion and the father wanted the child. But it just isn't that way yet. If it was possible, then the same right I described above that men should have to abort their relationahip/responsibility should be given to women.
I saw a great film a few weeks ago and just reviewed it (if interested, can read it here: HOLLYWOOD POV: "Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire"), and the subject matter of the film along with some of the comments here got me wondering why someone hasn't yet sued the government/republicans/RWRN (Right Wing Religous Nuts)/No-Choice groups for allowing them to be brought into the world.
Some women just shouldn't be having children. Why hasn't anyone in the Choice movement thought to find kids who might sue those groups for allowing them to be born into in untenable situations?
Also, good call on the movie "Precious...." A very good time for this movie to come out with all the health care issues at stake.
Actually in the US Declaration of Independence it guarantees all US citizens...wait, I'll quote from the wikipedia:
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man."
So, can anyone really enjoy life, liberty or happiness if they don't have health care to ensure that life and that liberty and that happiness?
Can anyone enjoy freedom if they are too sick to enjoy anything? Can one be happy if they are dying from an incurable illness and can't afford to see a doctor or undergo treatment?
Can one enjoy life, liberty or happiness if they are busy fighting with an insurance company to cover their expensive medical treatments after repeated denials of service from said insurance company? Is it fair to make terminally ill patients use their last days of life fighting a huge corporation focused only on quarterly profits? In point of fact, in cases like this the insurance companies would be DENYING what our Declaration of Independence assures us we have the right to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So all those lying RRWN are denying what we Americans are assured in the Declaration of Independence and what we deserve as American citizens...and what those same elected RRWN are enjoying themselves as they deny the same to everyone else.
That multiple lawsuits haven't yet been filed is puzzling. I'm so sick of liberals giving in to RRWN BS and not drawing their own line in the sand.
Great article! As is usual for you. Thanks for the information.