Health Care For All
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the recently passed House of Representatives health care reform bill denies health insurance coverage of abortion for women subscribing to a “public option” plan or receiving federal subsidies to buy mandated health insurance.
So, in effect, the reproductive rights of all women in America could be dropped from health insurance coverage. Here’s the analysis from Planned Parenthood legal experts:
Thus, if a plan wants to offer coverage in the exchange to both groups of individuals, it would have to offer two different plans: one with abortion coverage for women without subsidies and one without abortion coverage for women with subsidies. These private insurance plans would need to be identified as either providing or not providing coverage for abortion.
Health insurance plans are highly unlikely to operate in this manner, and it is not even clear that this is feasible under the administration of the exchange and affordability credits. As one alternative, the Stupak amendment purports to allow women to purchase a separate, single-service “abortion rider,” but abortion riders don’t exist. In the five states that only allow abortion coverage through a separate rider, there is no evidence that they are available.
Furthermore, women are unlikely to think ahead to choose a plan that includes abortion coverage, since they do not plan for unplanned pregnancy. In addition, it is not clear that health plans would even be allowed to offer two separate plans under other provisions of the act, such as the anti-discrimination and guaranteed-issue provisions. Those elements of the bill, which are very important to consumers, may make it impossible for plans to provide two separate plans, one that includes abortion and another that does not.
Realistically, the actual effect of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is to ban abortion coverage across the entire exchange, for women with both subsidized and unsubsidized coverage.
Link via Mikhaela.
The U.S. Supreme Court may uphold a woman’s right to a medical procedure on her own body, but the House health care plan doesn’t care. And what is the justification for that? Why are women’s reproductive rights expendable? Reach back into the lizard brain of patriarchy and you dredge up the assumption that only “sluts” need abortions. Only women who are irresponsible with their bodies need to resort to “baby killing”, so of course it is right for men to make their reproductive decisions for them. Really, without this underlying patronizing attitude, it’s hard to think of any other reason to deny women access to legal medical treatment that so fundamentally affects their bodies.
Anyway, you can always nag Obama to oppose this, like I did (and he does, anyway, for what that’s worth on its own) or you can take Kate Harding’s advice: tell the Democrats to go fuck themselves. Or something like that. Sounds good to me!
November 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court may uphold a woman’s right to a medical procedure on her own body, but the House health care plan doesn’t care.
The House health care plan shouldn’t care. The House health care plan doesn’t remove one’s right to an abortion. What it does is fail to create an entitlement to have it paid for with someone else’s tax dollars.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
But what makes that “entitlement” different from other necessary medical procedures? It’s not cosmetic surgery or a boob job. It’s the difference between forcing a woman to give birth or recognizing her right to terminate her pregnancy. As I said above (and at Barry’s blog), denying coverage in effect denies the ability of poor women to exercise a fundamental right.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I’m against paying for “erectile dysfunction.” Does that mean Congresscritters and others won’t get their lovely little blue pills? Nope.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Well, look at it this way, the final bill isn’t going to cover much of anyone anyway, and doesn’t even go into effect until 2013, if ever, so big whup. The details of a crap bill is still crap.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Those “details” could very well mean life or death for women. If we don’t defeat the Stupak amendment, Roe vs. Wade will be functionally void. I’d rather not let the Repub’s get a victory on this.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Oh please. Stupak-Pitts passed with 64 democrats voting for it. The Hyde Amendment, upon which Stupak was based, gets reauthorized every fucking year no matter which corporate party is in power. The democrats have been throwing women under the bus since 1977. Don’t even pretend your party gives a fart-in-a-high-wind about women.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Politicalguineapig – If, tomorrow, abortion was magically free, easy to obtain, and unopposed by the entire country (devoutly to be wish’d, btw) would your objection to paying for the treatment of erectile dysfunction disappear?
November 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Alan Smithee: Are you seriously suggesting Repub’s give a shit about women? Don’t make me laugh. Their whole party platform is based on the idea that women are incubators.
Some guy: Yes.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Just to jump in for a little clarification: I don’t think Alan is suggesting Republican’s give a crap about women. He’s saying that neither party gives a crap about women. Personally I think that stretches it too far, but Alan makes a good point that reproductive rights have been treated like a bargaining chip or as a way for male Dems to appear “moderate” by sacrificing them. That said, at least with Dems you can demand that they live up to the pro-choice plank of their party platform. With the GOP, you’d have to eliminate the “women as incubators” ideology altogether — I don’t foresee that happening any time soon.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I doubt Politicalguineapig really thinks that either, Kevin. Vilifying anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of evil evil republitard is just standard pwogwessive debate tactic. (Well, really, pwogs and freepers both use it.)
As far as making demands of the dems, good luck. Absent any real clout, pwoggie demands have about as much weight as Tinkerbell on Slimfast.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Making demands of the Dems: Easy, peasy. Go after their magic pills, prostate exams and other non-essential stuff (i.e. anything below the belt is fair game) and watch ‘em roll over. And Alan, I regard baby talk as an invitation to roll over you like a tank. Grow up, please.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Riiiiiiight. Good job so far, pwoggie bloggie puddin’ pop.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well, see how you like it when you can’t get your viagra or get told you have to take that prostate tumor to term. I’ve already contacted one of the Blue Dogs, what are you gonna do?
November 19th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Gosh, I think I’ll write a sternly worded letter to my congressman, send $20 to ActBlue and then hyperventilate on an obscure blog about my hard-core activism…oh, wait, you’ve got that covered already…
November 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Hey, what’s with the circular firing squad?
November 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
What “circular firing squad?” Politicalguineapwog’s just another do-nothing democrat who thinks his masters and betters give a shit about his oh-so pwogwessive opinion. Well I’m not gonna be on that team. Pick another kid.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I was thinking more that you and Politicalguineapig agree on the rights of women to reproductive choice; the sniping back and forth between you guys amounts to lefty infighting, or so it seems. That never seems productive. Granted, a discussion of tactics is necessary; as you dismiss PGP’s proposal to pester Democrats in Congress, what do you suggest? Working for a third party? As a former Naderista, I can get behind that, although I’d recommend not putting all the eggs in that particular basket. Or any particular personality, for that matter.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Hah. Third Parties don’t work. Pestering congress might work, publicly humiliating Rahm Emanual’d work better. If we start suggesting that viagra might go away, I’d be willing to bet that a lot of old and not so old men would consider supporting women’s reproductive rights. If women can’t get covered below the belt, men shouldn’t get covered either.
Alan, go lurk under some other bridge. You’re just another neo-con in disguise.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Sure, PGP. Everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon spy in the pay of Karl Rove working to disrupt your important progressive deliberations. It’s you’re just as batshit insane as your freeper cousins. Pwogs and freepers both think you can lose weight by eating ice cream and politics is some kind of fucking game.
Oh, and btw, if it weren’t for the National Woman’s Party, you shitfaced democrats would still be blocking women’s suffrage. Dipshit Obots like you keep chanting ‘Hope for Change’ but the only real change comes from outside your two fucking corporate parties.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Oh, almost forgot. Kevin, I think your making an categorical error here. PGP is in no way, shape or form a “leftist.” He’s a Democrat. This puts him roughly where the Eisenhower Republican’s were back in the day. The Republicans, of course, have turned into latterday John Birchers.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Alan: What they say about assumptions is true. I use a gender-neutral name on most of my posts in the internets.
If you’re going to call me “pwoggie,” I think assuming that you’re a freeper is legit.
And a question for all you third party supporters: Has any third party ever won an election recently? Or even come close?
If you back a winner, you can legitimately hold their feet to the fire. If you back the loser, then you’ve wasted a vote.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I don’t think this discussion has headed anywhere constructive, so I’m just gonna shut it down.