How The Health Care Reform Bill Is Screwing Over Women With An Abortion Amendment
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
11:20AM, Monday November 9th 2009
A health care reform passed in the House of Representatives on Saturday night, but only after politicians included an anti-abortion amendment to the bill so it could gain more support. Called the Stupack Amendment, named for Sen. Bart Stupack (D-MI), it prohibits the use of federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortion. In other words, if private insurance companies want to take money from individuals who are using federal dollars to pay for their health insurance, they cannot offer abortion coverage in their plans. Critics of the amendment say it’s a move by pro-lifers to encourage private health insurance companies to drop abortion coverage entirely. [The New York Times]
Health care reform needed to be passed, to be sure. But I, for one, am pissed off at the Republican and Democratic senators who used this opportunity to slowly chip away at reproductive rights. But politics is about compromise, you might say. OK, true, but critics argue that the only people who are compromised by this “compromise” are poor women. Women with financial means will always be able to scrape together the $400 to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The Stupack Amendment is stacking the deck against less privileged women, a demographic I believe government should be trying to help. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) cryptically warned The New York Times, “If enacted, this amendment will be the greatest restriction of a woman’s right to choose to pass in our careers.”
Let’s all hope more restrictions against reproductive choice aren’t still on the bargaining table as the bill goes to the Senate.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
lostrun
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]
I am also very angry over this. Quite honestly, if this is the bill we’ll end up w/, I would rather we not have any bill. Let things the way they are. No public option and restriction on abortions, I am very disheartened.
william.paul
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:46 am: [report]
You’re right, it is a dirty and bitter compromise. But the bill had enough trouble getting through the house as it was. Would you rather have had the bill not pass at all?
Hopefully this bill is able to function as a beachhead from which more comprehensive reform can be launched during a more enlightened era.
lahnne
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]
What a ridiculous amendment. Those who would actually need the coverage (assumedly financially disadvantaged women) wouldn’t get it… Isn’t that the opposite of what this plan is supposed to achieve? (And WOAH. Why was the Bishop given so much power in this? Church and State, anyone?)
ms. swiss miss
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:53 am: [report]
The bill passed the House, it’s now going to the Senate.
C.Munro
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:57 am: [report]
How else are the powers that be going to maintain hegemony and keep poor people poor?
dearface
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 12:19 pm: [report]
Yes, I would rather have the bill not pass at all. Why is a weak bill that leaves women worse off than we were before better than nothing? If we keep allowing ‘pro-choice’ legislators and other progressive/democratic leaders be weak on important issues, they will continue to get weaker and weaker and allow Catholic Bishops to run the show.
So yes, no bill at all would be better.
Why can’t we take a page from the religious right - when candidates weren’t strong on their issues, they refused to support/vote for them. If we’d sit out a round or two maybe we wouldn’t continue to be screwed over.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 12:26 pm: [report]
i would imagine this doesnt leave women worse off that no bill would have left them… the women who need abortions, cant afford insurance w/o government funding, and cant save enough money to pay for their own abortion are left worse off than they would have been before the bill. but, not having read the bill, i IMAGINE there are a ton of ways this will help those same women in other ways. blanket statements dont apply. did you support healthcare reform for the sole purpose of funding abortions for the economically challenged? i support it b/c 1/3 of my check goes towards insurace, 1/3 of my check goes towards taxes (to help pay for health care for ppl w/o it), and when i go get something done at the hospital, the first $800 and then 20% of the rest of it comes out of my pocket. im ready for a new system. im tired of carrying the current one on my back. arent you?
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 01:14 pm: [report]
I have to say I’m torn about this one. I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather this bill provide birth control for less-fortunate women than abortions, as that is ALWAYS the better choice if you don’t want children. However, I also think it’s wrong that if required, a woman can’t obtain an abortion through her insurance because of what basically boils down to a religious stipulation.
I am fully and completely against mandating reproductive rights… but I would be PISSED if my tax dollars were going towards something that I was fundamentally morally against as well. Like cosmetic surgery… or AIG bonuses.
I seriously hope the Senate kills the public option though.
EricaLnyy
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
they can’t just make abortions totally legal AND practically free. if that were the case, people would slowly begin to get more and more careless about birth control because they know they can always fall back on the abortion option.
of course if a woman using (and can afford) proper birth control still gets pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy then she has every right.
however, a woman who engages in risky unprotected sexual activity voluntarily SHOULD have to PAY for her mistake. maybe dropping 400 bucks will teach her a lesson.
bumbler
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]
Weren’t the republicans rabble-rousing about how health care reform would limit or influence our ability to choose our own health care? And they’re the ones to introduce a bill that does so, I’m sending them each a dictionary with “hypocrite” highlighted.
Something to think about, if health care plans that accept government subsidies are favored by the American public, how many plans that currently cover abortion would be willing to continue to do so in the future?
william.paul
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 02:22 pm: [report]
@bumbler shhhhhhhhhh! They don’t want you to notice that.
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 02:43 pm: [report]
Actually, the Republicans were mostly rabble-rousing about the fact that tax-payers were going to have to take the brunt of the multi-trillion dollar cost of this piece of crap. Government-run corporations are the only companies in the world that do not have to show a profit to remain in business… they can cost the tax-payers millions to run, without ever actually being effective.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate this provision, but I don’t see this act hypocritical on their part.
Wanting the government NOT to be able to dictate your health care is different in my eyes than forcing tax-payers to pay for something they find morally and ethically reprehensible.
The hippies have been bitching about this same subject in regards to things like the war and the death penalty for years… for decades even. It makes me sad that we all have to support causes we don’t believe in, but it’s a fact of life… if someone wants to stand up against any kind of governmental ascendency, I say let them fight it.
The government putting their hands into anyone’s healthcare is going to come with strings attached… that’s the way it works. I think they should just stay out all together. It’s only way to avoid stipulations like these.
william.paul
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 02:51 pm: [report]
@resullins I don’t believe the Republicans have a problem with a large, un-compassionate, soulless entity being able to dictate your healthcare. They would just prefer it be a for-profit insurance company that is beholden to shareholders before patients.
If the insurance companies behaved in a responsible, ethical, and transparent manner: we wouldn’t need a government plan.
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:05 pm: [report]
You just answered your own question. We don’t need a government plan, we need to reform the health-care industry. Either way we do this it’s going to have problems… but there is NO currently functioning government-run company that is efficient and effective. The IRS? The Post Office? The Social Security System? The only one that even CLOSE to working was Medicare, and they’re tearing that apart to put money towards Health Care.
And if the Government behaved in a responsible, ethical, and transparent manner, we wouldn’t have a country. There is no “good guy” in this fight. There are two valid sides to a problem that will never meet in the middle because personal agendas and partisan politics will get in the way.
I have health care and I HATE it… but making me pay for all the welfare-abusers in this country isn’t going to make it any better! And what do you think the people that already leach off the system are going to do once that system caters to the leachers? I agree with @EricaLnyy up there… there’s no way to avoid the people that going to take advantage of a system, but abortion and healthcare are DANGEROUS items to make freely available to those people.
bumbler
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:30 pm: [report]
@resullins On the contrary, there is a heavily funded advertising campaign here centered around the fact that health care reform will take away your right to choose your program and doctor. I have to sit through the idiotic commercials sometimes 6x a night.
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:32 pm: [report]
That’s why I said “mostly.” I’ve never seen that commercial, though I’m sure the party has used that tactic. I have, however, seen damn near every Republican talking about not wanting to pay for other people’s healthcare, which I FULLY support.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:34 pm: [report]
@resullins - you already do. its called 1/3 of your paycheck going towards taxes which pay ER bills for the uninsured…
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:38 pm: [report]
Again: I know this, I’m not stupid… but that’s why I support reforming the insurance companies. It is not now nor should it ever be my responsibility to pay for a someone that is so happy sitting on their couch getting a check every week that they will never get out and get a job.
I support making health care mandatory, I support turning every single insurance company into a non-profit or telling them that they can not turn people down, I support rewarding businesses that offer health-care coverage. I will not and can not support an option that is the medical equivalent of welfare.
powplz
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:46 pm: [report]
@resullins - um, do you realize that a lot of the uninsured work and simply can’t afford healthcare? A lot of those people are actually working more than one job just to keep basic necessities like food on the table and a place to live. The image of the lazy, leeching, couch potato welfare cop-out is a gross hyperbole as the example of the average person that would benefit from a public option.
Perceptible
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:48 pm: [report]
@resullins, you have some good points.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:52 pm: [report]
@res - im ok with burning down insurance companies…
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
@Joyy: yes, I do realize that… I grew up dirt ass poor wearing my brother’s hand-me-downs and without a speck of health care to my name… but I pulled my as out of the hills and got an education and a job. I realize not everyone can do this… I really do. But handing out free healthcare at the expense of hard-working America isn’t the answer. It is not a cop-out, it is the truth. There are some people that legitimately need welfare as well, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a good portion of leachers in the system. Unless they can put together a system that will omit these people, I won’t support it.
And I could also be a little biased here… so forgive me. The reason I DIDN’T vote for Obama was his voting record in the Senate… he voted MULTIPLE times to increase spending for both welfare and affirmative action, two of the worst programs in America’s history. I see that voting record in this… I can’t seperate the two.
Now… I REALLY hope they come up with a solution that doesn’t have a trillion dollar price tag, because I DO hate the current system, it is broken and corrupt and getting worse every single day. But they’re ALL handling it wrong.
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]
@Perceptible… thank you. I sometimes have very controversial views on government on a site like this. I am extraordinarily socially liberal, but I am a registered Republican… mostly because of issues like this.
bumbler
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]
@joyy Exactly. My father is 60 years old in a physically demanding job often involving heavy lifting and 18 hour days. Right now he has insurance through his union but he has had numerous health issues that will make it difficult for him to work too much longer. He’s hoping to hold out until he’s 63 to max out his pension but won’t be eligible for medicare until he’s 65. His union insurance policy will drop him as soon as he is no longer a full-time employee. During those 2 years he will have to carry private insurance. He has hundreds of dollars worth of medication every month as well as almost monthly check ups with a general practitioner, cardiologist and vascular surgeon. I’m terrified of how much it will cost him for those two years to look after his health.
I don’t claim to have all the answers about how to fix health care in this country. I do know that the system has been broken for a very long time now and we have to bear the consequences until something is done. It’s not like an HMO’s board of directors will take a pay cut.
powplz
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]
@res - I also pulled my asss out of the hills, went to college, and got a job that covers me (which I’m psyched about). But your comments seem to reflect an attitude that people who need assistance getting healthcare, are on Medicaid, or simply can’t afford insurance can’t possibly also fall into the category of “hard-working Americans.”
I don’t agree with everything you’d saying, but this kind of rhetoric definitely detracts from some of the more valid points you make and casts a pretty harsh stigma on people who work hard but fall between the cracks of the current (extremely flawed) system.
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 04:15 pm: [report]
You’re probably right… I’m harsh, but I can’t stand paying for welfare for people that ARE perfectly capable of getting jobs. I can’t stand my taxes going to pay the ER bills for illegal immigrants either. There are political radicals out there that refuse to pay all their taxes so that none of their money goes to the war… it’s a common concept in general terms.
Regulation needs to happen, across a LOT of programs. Healthcare, Welfare, IRS, Social Security…
If the government ever proves to me that they will only help the deserving, the hard-working, etc… then I will be out in the streets collecting signatures for this thing. But I feel like more free stuff is going to make the problem worse, not better.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 04:22 pm: [report]
the people in walmart who ride the carts, but walk just fine piss me off too…
resullins
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 04:26 pm: [report]
Yup… as do the people that use their obesity as a handicap.
Wow… I feel a little like the Devil’s Advocate today… gotta love political discussions. At least <insert really crappy subscriber’s name here> hasn’t found this post yet… me and her would go on all day…
retro chic
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 04:26 pm: [report]
Nothing new – everything has a price, ie, beware of governments bearing gifts: you give up more in important rights than gain in demonstrable benefits. Think Homeland Security. There will be more… this is a multiagenda proposition still unfolding and cannot be (easily) reversed.
impoddity
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 05:20 pm: [report]
Our government has a lot of flaws, but so does everyone else’s. We’re the wealthiest nation in the world and still lagging behind on simple, basic rights.
I have life-long health insurance though the government, Tricare Humana, through a disability. But I still believe every other American citizen (natural-born or naturalized) deserves the same benefits as those who work for them, regardless of situation.
The only way we, as Americans, are going to get out of this huge hole that’s been dug for us is to start giving back and taking responsibility for our neighbor. We can whine all day about who’s a social loafer and who works harder for their money, but in the end, we’re all paying for each other, in one form or another.
That being said, I support abortion in the public-option (which does sucks, but small steps!), but i think comprehensive sex education and low, low cost contraceptives should be included. It seems rather foolish to have one without the others.
Heatherer
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 11:29 pm: [report]
To be clear the bill prohibits funding abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger. Which truly isn’t that different from the current government restrictions on funding abortions.
Oreo
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 05:15 am: [report]
Seriously.
Abortion issues that involve rape, incest or the life of the mother are handled in a hospital, not an abortion clinic. They’re covered.
Being pro-choice is one thing, but take SOME responsibility and pay for it yourself. The time has come to stop using the tired fallback of “poverty” when you make poor decisions. If you’re an American, you live in the most privileged human society in the history of civilization.
I’m absolutely in favor of universal health care. I feel that health care should be a basic human right, but abortion is not health care; it is a choice, and while you have the right to make it, I have a right to stand up and say that I refuse to allow my taxes to pay for it.
FoxieJD
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]
So, I guess it doesn’t really matter that this is just in line with the ban on federal subsidies we already have. If we can change the current policy, it will change the health care bill.
I think I’m mostly upset that the health care bill will provide Christian Science “prayer therapy”, but not abortion. Just saying.
lawyrgrl
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 11:11 am: [report]
@Oreo Abortion is not healthcare? If prenatal care and delivery is healthcare then so is abortion. Both are treating the same underlying issue. Determining which treatment is OK and which isn’t is NOT your call. It is that of the woman and her doctor.
mysticpenguin
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:43 pm: [report]
Oreo, you wrote “Being pro-choice is one thing, but take SOME responsibility and pay for it yourself. The time has come to stop using the tired fallback of “poverty” when you make poor decisions. If you’re an American, you live in the most privileged human society in the history of civilization.”
Yes, we do live in a privileged society. That doesn’t mean that poverty does not exist here.
Abortions at clinics cost anywhere from $400 to $900 and sometimes even more if the woman is unaware of the pregnancy beyond the first trimester (which, tragically, is not as uncommon as we would all hope). Are you telling me that someone who is working in the “working poor” zone—making too much to qualify for welfare/other programs but too little to afford their own healthcare—is going to be able to come up with $400 to $900??? These people can’t come up with $200 a month for health care. How do we expect them to magically come up with anywhere from $400 - $900 or more?
Oreo
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 04:00 pm: [report]
It’s between the woman and her doctor as long as the payment is between the woman and her doctor.
If I’m paying for it, and I’m voting for the people who determine if I pay for it, it IS my call, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for your “choice.”
bumbler
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 04:07 pm: [report]
So no coverage for people with STDs and AIDs (when transmitted by sex)?
resullins
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 04:40 pm: [report]
@Oreo: You’re walking a VERY thin line here. However, I see your point, and agree with you to an extent.
@Bumbler: The difference here is AIDS treatment can’t be used as a back-up plan. No one goes out and says “I’ll have unprotected sex, it doesn’t matter if I get AIDS, I can get rid of it tomorrow.” Of course, there’s also a difference between people that condone VERY high risk behavior and those that don’t. Drug users, prostitutes, rock drummers, etc.
Perhaps there should be coverage for abortions, but you only get one. That should be enough to teach someone a lesson, and it will weed out the repeat offenders that use it as birth-control. Just like Penicillin… you get the clap once in college cause you made a mistake, ok. You’re a drug user that has the Herp, AIDS, Syph, and Trych, there’s a point where it needs to be cut off.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 05:01 pm: [report]
@oreo - you dont get to decide where your tax dollars are spent. you vote for the people who do.
that being said, i agree. abortions are elective. if you get abortions paid for, i want my gym memberships paid for.
Heatherer
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 05:51 pm: [report]
@bumbler I get what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think that abortions can be equated to AIDS or STD treatments. STD’s and AIDS are diseases that get treated with medication in order to protect your health. Abortions (in this case) are elective surgeries.
In my opinion elective abortions are more equivalent to cosmetic surgery. Elective; and therefore not a health care coverage necessity.
bumbler
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 06:00 pm: [report]
The point is if we’re using coverage for health procedures to punish people for poor choices or accidents we’re treading on a slippery slope. Also I don’t understand the “we don’t want to cover elective abortion” point if we cover birth control pills, patches, shots, implants and IUDs. I agree that it’s not the best form of birth control ut I think the number of women who use it multiple times as their sole mean of birth control are grossly over-estimated in conversations like this one, ultimately it is nothing more than a fertilized egg and I have no moral or ethical qualms about getting rid of it. I see no moral difference between covering abortion and covering birth control.
Heatherer
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 06:50 pm: [report]
I don’t think it’s to punish people for poor choices.
They have to limit what they will allow covered in the government health plan so that it remains affordable. Forgetting the fact that abortions are so connected to peoples morals and values, medically it is an elective surgery; medically unnecessary.
bumbler
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 07:22 pm: [report]
But then so is birth control, Viagra, breast reduction surgery and on and on all of which are often covered and most likely will be covered by the health care plan. The problem is that for every reason you come up with why abortion should not be covered I can come up with something else that should not be covered for the same reason ut will be anyway. The only reason abortion won’t e covered is that they’re legislating morality. Sorry for typos my b button is sticking and I don’t have the energy to go back and seek out missing letter b’s.
impoddity
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 08:27 pm: [report]
@bumbler: I agree with you about the elective procedures/medications.
I recently had a conversation with some peers about the necessity of Viagra. I think counseling/therapy, a healthy active lifestyle and good communication with one’s partner could remedy that issue.
And somehow it always seems to be women and minorities who suffer when it comes to any type of policy-making. But so it goes…. :/
Heatherer
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:08 am: [report]
@bumbler I see your point. Question though. Are they covering other elective procedures in the government plan?
DancerNinja
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:03 am: [report]
I’m with bumbler.
Pregnancy is preventable to a degree, but so are many cases of type II diabetes and heart disease. And preaching abstinence from sex is as realistic as abstinence from cake. No one is pushing for restricted coverage on those issues.
Some heart disease and diabetes II cases are genetically linked. And some people get pregnant despite multiple layers of protection.
And to top it off, it would seem that the right wing who would restrict abortions would be a-okay with leeching tax dollars towards an accident child’s health care for the rest of it’s life in this public option shenanigan. Usually the same right wing that is against tax payers paying extra for most anything.
I’m also with resullins on health care industry reform, rather than this blunt object bashing with government run programs.
resullins
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:12 am: [report]
@Dancer: I do have to say, I’m getting RETARDEDLY sick of the public being beaten over the head with a public option that the majority of Americans don’t want.
If you go in and stop the system from hemmoraging from the inside, you wouldn’t need the band-aid!
bumbler
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:15 am: [report]
To be fair, poll after poll have shown the majority of Americans do favor a public option.
resullins
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:21 am: [report]
That depends on whose poll you’re looking at. I can find 5 that say differently. All poll-takers have an agenda. So, to compromise, we’ll say it’s fifty-fifty.
Oreo
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 09:43 pm: [report]
“But then so is birth control, Viagra, breast reduction surgery and on and on all of which are often covered and most likely will be covered by the health care plan.”
I don’t think these should be covered by taxpayers either.
People tend to confuse “health care” with anything that involves the medical profession. “Health care” should be exactly that; services to maintain your health. Biological alterations and services are not all linked with “health”.
Viagra does not maintain your health because the ability to have an erection is not necessary. It is certainly a desirable physical ability that enables the individual to more easily engage in intercourse, but nothing more. If we call it “health care”, what’s to stop us from calling botox injections and a nose job “health care”? After all, the purpose behind these surgeries is to become more physically attractive, and thus more sexually appealing, with the same desired effect of enabling the individual to more easily engage in intercourse.
Before you argue “mental health”, let me stop you right off the bat, because nowhere in the DSM IV does it suggest that abortions, viagra and breast augmentation are necessary surgeries to treat a mental illness.
Publicly funded health care should be instituted only after distinctions are made that separate what is absolutely necessary from services that are optional.
The more I think about it, the more I hope that abortion is covered by the public option. I can think of no better way to rally the American people to outlawing abortion (outside of issues that involve rape, incest or the life of the mother).
agmartin
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 09:32 am: [report]
In my state insurance companies offer insurance for maternity care as a rider on the individual insurance policies they offer. They charge a significant fee for it (making it essentially prepaying for maternity care) because they expect only those planning to have a kid to be interested.
I suspect insurance coverage for abortions will also be offered as a rider to insurance plans. Since the bills require maternity coverage to be covered they will have an incentive to keep the price low because paying for the abortion instead of maternity care will save them a significant amount of money.