Abortion Coverage: House Versus Senate Bill
What are the differences between abortion coverage in the House versus the Senate bill?
-The House has 25 mentions of abortion versus the Senate’s 21.
-The Senate Bill mandates federally funded abortion coverage, where the House Bill passed the Stupak Amendment, which bans federally subsidized coverage that could ultimately lead to denying abortion coverage in private plans.
-According to Andrea Simoncic of the Examiner, “the Senate bill simply provides abortion funding in a much more direct and honest manner” than the House Bill. Tax dollars will be mandated for abortion coverage in the Senate Bill.
Regardless of which bill passes in the House or the Senate, there have been rumors that President Obama does not support Stupak and could intervene in the final legislation. However, Stupak told Fox News that “They’re not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward.”
Wow. Really? It’s not possible for national health coverage to pass if it includes abortion coverage? I thought we lived in a modern society. But we also live in a society where women pay 48 percent more for health insurance than men. Pregnancy and reproductive health coverage can be denied in insurance plans due to a “pre-existing condition.”
There is a lot of room for reform in the American health care system, but I am willing to wait for nationalizing health care if it does not include reproductive health coverage. If we have waited this long, why not wait a little longer and get it right?
Anti-Stupak Advocators
With a Saturday session of the Senate, a vote on the health care bill is planned for 8 p.m. tonight. Will Stupak pass? If so, this will be a step backwards on health care reform.
Planned Parenthood is leading the anti-Stupak movement with their “Pass Health Care Reform! Stop Stupak!” campaign. Supporters are encouraged to sign an online petition addressed to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi. The message states: “Women must be able to purchase private or public health insurance that offers comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care.”
Female reproductive health coverage should not be banned from private and public insurance plans. This will affect millions of women who already have abortion coverage.
The Students Stop Stupak blog, created by Harvard student activists was created to “ensure that the Stupak amendment doesn’t end up in the final health care bill” and “mobilize college students at Harvard and beyond to start a movement advocating for women’s health care, reproductive rights, etc.”
I commend these students for organizing this group. Our generation is always criticized for not caring. Well, stopping Stupak is an issue that everyone should care about. We cannot allow the status quo to change on abortion coverage.
A good line on the Students Stop Stupak blog is “women’s health care is health care.” Women’s health care coverage in a government plan is just as important, even if that includes abortion. Reproductive health services are a natural health care need to women. Women should not be denied sufficient coverage because of the power of the Catholic Bishops in the House.
Anti-Stupak activism is critical. Please sign the Planned Parenthood petition and visit the Students Stop Stupak website to show your support or follow them on twitter.
UMass Amherst Views on Stupak
Most students I talked to were not aware of the details of the Stupak Amendment, but had heard a rumor of restrictions being passed on abortion. Well, if the vote in the Senate doesn’t change the measure, the rumors will be true: there will be a ban on abortion coverage.
According to sophomore social thought and political economy major Maria Geueke, “A woman should have the same access to resources and be able to afford abortion.” Geueke found the recent legislation “ridiculous.”
Nancy L. Cohen of the Huffington Post also sees Stupak as preposterous. Cohen believes “the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active.” She gives a good break down of why women need reproductive services in her 10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go.
The most telling statistic being “80% of Americans think abortion should be legal in some circumstances.” So if the majority of Americans approve of some abortion rights, than why shouldn’t there be insurance coverage of reproductive services that are essential in some circumstances?
Senior sociology major, Laura Mason said, “I think that in America health care is viewed as a business where as in other countries it is seen as a social right.”
There is a business aspect, but also a strong religious aspect. The Catholic Bishops showed their lobbying force in the House, as well as the Blue Dog Democrats by getting Stupak passed last minute.
“Religion shouldn’t be forced on anyone, everyone should have the right to freedom,” said philosophy senior John Maynes. Maynes sees the legislation as step towards prohibiting Roe vs. Wade.
In Newsweek, reporter Eleanor Clift does not see the legislation as permanent. There is still hope in the Senate bill. Access to abortion coverage needs to improve, not be further restricted.
Health Bill Passes, No Pass for Abortion Coverage
The overall health care reform bill passed 220-to-215, but the restrictive language on abortion coverage in the Stupak Amendment also passed with a 240-to-194 vote with the support of the anti-choice Democrats and the Catholic Bishops.
The Stupak Amendment establishes a ban on government subsidies to pay for “any part of a policy that includes abortion coverage.” This means that tax credits given to lower income families cannot be used towards abortion services in any circumstance. Newly insured women will not be offered insurance plans that cover abortion. Those women with insurance that covers abortion could lose that coverage if employers chose to use the government plan.
In the San Francisco Chronicle, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. states, “the truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now – including millions of women.” Yes, this is true, but we should not be moving backwards on reproductive service coverage.
Obama somewhat agrees. The President does not want to change the “status quo” on abortion, but he also does not support the use of federal money for abortions. Therefore, there should be no increase of abortion coverage in insurance, but the Stupak Amendment would alter the status quo on abortion coverage and should be revised by Congress.
I hope the final vote on Stupak in the Senate does not pass. With the strong support from anti-choice Democrats, some Republicans, and the Bishops it will be a close call.
Female health is not a priority. It has always been prohibiting reproductive services that gets the most attention. The recent W.H.O. study reports that the majority of women in developing countries do not have sufficient health care coverage. Although the status of women’s health in the U.S. has improved in the last century, reform is still necessary especially in reproductive coverage.
Anti-Abortion Movement Gains Momentum
Recently, a dozen anti-abortion supporters were arrested for protesting outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office. Those arrested were the followers of Randall Terry and Father Norman Weslin, who are prominent anti-choice activists.
Today, one protester outside the Capitol targeted President Obama as a “fascist” that “will force Americans to pay for abortions and for government-provided health care.” This protester was from the group Insurrecta Nex, which follows Terry, who is described as a “militant anti-abortion leader.”
This is not true! First of all, there will be no government dollars going towards abortion and Americans will not be paying more for a public option. The public option will be there, but that does not mean you have to give up your existing coverage.
Also, government measures like Medicaid and Medicare are existing programs that have taken American tax dollars. This is not a new concept.
In the blog I am Emily X, the staff of Planned Parenthood recounted the 40 days of protests by the 40 Days for Life campaign. On the 40th day there were 1,034 protesters spotted outside of Planned Parenthood facilities nationally. Planned Parenthood supporters raised $56,048 against the 40 day protest movement.
Anti-abortionists are making health care reform a negative thing. The point of reforming the health care system is providing health insurance to more people, and that health insurance should cover abortion just like existing private insurance plans.
Stunting Abortion Coverage in Stupak Amendment
Today’s health care reform vote in the House was not good news for pro-choice supporters. There was a last-minute abortion compromise known as the Stupak Amendment, which guarantees that no federal dollars will be used towards abortion coverage.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops support the amendment that specifies that there will be no abortion coverage in the government insurance plan and this could also go as far as applying to private insurance plans that already cover abortion.
According to Planned Parenthood, “If the bishops and their anti-choice partners in the House succeed, they’ll permanently alter health care in America, even taking away benefits from women that they have today. The bishops want to effectively eliminate abortion coverage in both private plans and the public option.”
This is a serious halt on reforming health care with conservatives stunting existing abortion coverage. The U.S. should not be moving backwards on female health care coverage when the health care bill seeks to improve the current system.
Planned Parenthood is strongly advocating for people not to let this happen, by calling local representatives and tweeting the news on PPact. Please visit the Planned Parenthood Action Center to find out more about the pro-choice campaign.
Nancy Pelosi: A Powerful Woman in Health Reform
ABC News identifies Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as “the most powerful and polarizing woman in the history of American politics.” Pelosi is the first woman who has held the position of House speaker, and she understands the pressure that comes with her job.
In the ABC interview, Pelosi said she is a target as a woman and liberal in politics. She ignores the Republican and conservative Blue Dog Democrats discontent with the health care reform bill. I greatly respect Pelosi for remaining confident and driven in attaining a government insurance option.
Most recently, Pelosi gave a speech at the front of the Capitol for the unveiling of the current health care reform bill and a heckler yelled “burn in hell,” which she brushed off by saying: “Thank you insurance companies of America.” It is important for her to show strength against opposition, but also not to stoop to their level and I think she did this gracefully with a little humor.
Her toughest critic is Fox News, who made fun of Pelosi’s response to the heckler by reenacting the exchange in “Fox and Friends” with hosts Steve Doocey and Alisyn Camerota. Fox columnist, Ken Klukowski, wrote an open letter to Pelosi and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that calls the health care reform legislation unconstitutional. Klukowski claims that there is no individual mandate that allows the bill.
Pelosi does not see this as a “serious question” that would prohibit the passing of the health care bill. Klukowski goes on to say, “Should you insist on passing a law penalizing — or even making it a crime — for people not to buy insurance, then Congress and President Obama run the risk of a stern judicial rebuke.”
The fact is that the health care reform bill would not require people to buy the government insurance option. Americans who want to keep their existing private plans are free to do so.
Michelle Obama Stresses Female Health
The first lady has become the voice of female health in the Obama Administration. The video below was recently released by the White House in an effort to stress the importance of female health insurance reform. Mrs. Obama makes her stance clear by saying, “The need for health insurance reform is a critically important issue for families all across the country.” Generally, women manage the health care needs of themselves and their children.
Mrs. Obama relates to the uninsured by discussing the fear of not having proper health insurance when critical health care service is absolutely necessary. She gives the example of her daughter Sasha being diagnosed with meningitis, where the Obamas had health insurance coverage, but what if they had not in this life threatening circumstance?
According to Politics Daily, ” one in 10 [breast] cancer patients said they could not get covered because of their pre-existing condition.” Insurance is supposed to provide health care coverage, not prohibit it. Insurance needs to be affordable to those who need it the most, like cancer patients.
On the health care blog iVillage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, states that in the government health insurance plan “insurance companies will no longer be able to eliminate folks based on a pre-existing condition; there will be a limit for how much they can charge for out-of-pocket costs.”
Also, Sebelius said that the extent of maternity coverage should be reformed in the government plan. With most insurance plans not covering the full cost of maternity care, reproductive health, and birth control, there definitely needs to be more female health care coverage.
On the Politics daily column Lynn Sweet writes about Mrs. Obama’s hosting of an event honoring Breast Cancer Awareness month. The fact that the first lady is strongly addressing women’s needs in the health care debate, is a crucial step to reforming female health care coverage.
The Abortion Question Needs an Answer!
The health care debate is going around in circles over the abortion question. Will the health care bill allow federal dollars to be used toward abortion coverage or not? Well, from what the media is reporting–the majority of the House and President Obama say no federal money for abortions.
But the specification in the bill is the matter of debate–there are options for lower income families of providing tax credits that could be used to attain abortion coverage. Wouldn’t that mean government money could be spent towards reproductive services?
According to the AP article Abortion divides House Dems in Health Care Debate, there are two dozen anti-abortion democrats who want to make sure that the bill clearly prohibits federal funding of abortions.
Some believe the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used towards abortions “except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered,” would answer the abortion question. Others report that there are discrepancies with the amendment and that it only applies to Medicaid.
On the Life News website, this article gives both sides of the debate over the Hyde Amendment. According to National Right to Life federal legislative director Douglas Johnson and AP, the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the new health care bill.
However, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the Hyde Amendment directly prohibits federal funding of abortions. The Life News website believes that Gibbs mislead reporters.
In my opinion, a new amendment should be established where there is no confusion in the language of the amendment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not specify if there will be an amendment on abortion, and said the current focus is on “our policy on this legislation.”
Yes, I agree that the health care bill overall and the public option should be the priority, but the issue of abortion cannot be ignored. There is too much controversy in the media not to answer the question: Will women receive abortion coverage or not?
Medi-Gal 