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.
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.
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?
Women Speak Out on Health Reform
This past Thursday there was a female dominated talk on health care in the Senate. While Democrats and President Obama insist that health reform will benefit women and are trying to campaign to get women more involved, most women do not feel included in the health care debate. In an Associated Press-GfK poll, one-third of women under the age of 55 reported that they were ambivalent about health care reform and did not support either side.
This means that Congress needs to target women as a group even more. Women have to be part of the debate before decisions like reducing reproductive rights and maternity benefits are not included in a government insurance plan. Strong advocates for getting female voices heard are Michelle Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the latter of which led a rally on the steps of the Capitol.
In my opinion, women need health reform more than men. Not only are women in need of more health care service, but they are usually the individuals in the household that are responsible for managing the well-being and health of others. Also, since working women get paid less and some cannot be full time employees due to household duties, they qualify for insurance coverage less often than men.
Women would greatly benefit from health care reform, especially in the need for more federal funding of breast cancer research. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women. “This year in the United States, over 192,370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and approximately 40,170 women will die from the disease.”
These are some frightening statistics. Breast cancer runs in my family; I lost my maternal grandmother to it, and my mother has had a cancerous cyst removed. In a hearing last Wednesday to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, Otis Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer of the ACS, spoke about the importance of improving the health care service for breast cancer patients and having more early detection services such as mammograms. The latter is a problem that I have noticed, most women do not get tested for cancer early on in their lives to reduce medical costs, something that I have experienced.
The good news is that this upcoming Tuesday the Senate Finance Committee is voting on getting health care reform initiatives passed and improving existing ones. According to Obama, health care reform will “not add one dime to the deficit,” but reduce costs. Republicans do not fully agree. Pelosi said there will be a public option. Regardless of all the controversy circulating around health care reform, I am optimistic that once passed the health care bill will be positive for everyone. I just want the needs of women to be further addressed before it passes.
Women Need Health Care…More!
UMass economics professor, Nancy Folbre, wrote the column “Health Care Reform is a Woman’s Issue” in The New York Times; she argues that women need more health coverage than men because of pregnancy care and managing health care for their families.
The cost of health care for young women is higher than for men. Women need maternity care that requires intense medical care that obviously does not apply to men. In the long run, most women in households take responsibility for their children’s health. Personally, it was always my mother fretting over a minor cold I had and insisting to take me to the doctor.
Folbre gives a good account of the financial structure of health care in a typical household. She references the report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, stating that 64 million women do not have proper health insurance, and 1.7 million women have lost health insurance due to job losses—71% of which were due a husband’s job loss.
This vulnerability puts women in a very tough place. They are charged more for coverage, and yet they can’t help that they need to go to the doctor more often than men. Some women are reliant on their husband’s financial stability to receive health insurance; imagine getting divorced and losing health insurance—two blows. Many women will continue to lose coverage and care if the health care system does not improve.
One woman that is getting her voice heard on the importance of female health care is First Lady Michelle Obama. Reader’s Digest reporter Neil Merlino describes her recent speech at the White House, which focused on the need for the current health care system to be reformed of “gender bias” so that there can be “true equality.” Michelle has a background in health since she worked in the University of Chicago Medical Center. I really respect Michelle Obama and her effort to stress the need for female health reform.
No Federal Dollars for Abortion Coverage
The New York Times has reported that a considerable amount of moderate Democrats and Republicans are in favor of restricting the use of federal money to pay for abortions. Although President Obama initially gave the impression that he was a supporter of female health rights, but the “abortion fight” has strongly divided up the House, causing him to take the side of restricting the use of subsidies for abortion. Currently, Obama has not clearly addressed his stance on these new restrictive proposals. It seems he is waiting for a middle ground that does not exist.
According to New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, the abortion opponents are “requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.” So both insurers and consumers would have to pay from private funds to receive abortion services. This could have the consequence of private insurers not wanting to provide abortion to cut costs, resulting in women losing existing abortion coverage.
In the October newsletter from Planned Parenthood, this New York Times article was mentioned. Pro-choice supporters are worried that women are going have to give up the abortion coverage that they already have from private insurance plans.
The president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is profiled and interviewed on her views on the health care debate. According to Richards, Planned Parenthood’s goals are to “just to make sure that reproductive healthcare is part of the healthcare package – and the second is that women’s healthcare providers are part of whatever exchange is developed.” Richards wants the government insurance plan to be supported by a diverse variety of health care providers and clinics, so that getting contraception is not an issue.
In modern society, women should not have to “fight” to receive the coverage they need, but then again who is fighting in the House and Senate right now? The majority of the House and Senate are made up of males. Female health coverage is not just a heavily debated issue, but an issue to be controlled.
If you are interested in supporting women’s rights to reproductive health please attend the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice Lobby Day 2009 on Oct. 6 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the State House in Boston.
The Baucus Health Care Plan’s Stance on Abortion
With the release of the Baucus Reform Plan on Wednesday, Sept. 23, the abortion issue has been further addressed. The plan’s leader is Montana Senator Max Baucus, who is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
According to News-Medical.net, “The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent ‘federal funding of abortion’ as President Obama said last week.”
‘Elective abortion’ is used to describe a medication-induced abortion, so coverage of an elective abortion is more acceptable than a surgical abortion? If this passes, than Obama’s claim to not funding abortion will be false, and states like South Dakota with abortion bans would be horrified.
Time Magazine correspondent Michael Scherer discusses the Baucus plan in detail and describes ‘Co-Ops’ or “private non-profit companies” that would be funded by federal loans and grants. These Co-Ops could provide abortion services.
Another key component of the Baucus plan is that it does not support the public option, which provides abortion coverage under a government health care plan. Huffington Post columnist Steven Waldman writes that under Baucus lower income families who cannot afford to pay for abortion services could apply for ‘tax credits’ that would give them relief on taxes and could be used towards insurance costs. This is a new approach since the House bill would provide direct government subsidies, and this leads to the highly contested issue of providing federal money for abortion.
Baucus does not outwardly say that there will not be government funding of abortion, but leaves exceptions. In my opinion, Baucus has created a middle ground where the issue has been further addressed, but the subsidizing of abortion coverage is vague. And this is on purpose. According to Waldman, Baucus is trying to gain the endorsement of the pro-life Catholic Bishops, who would only approve health reform without abortion coverage.
Health Reform: Pro or Anti Abortion?
In nationalizing health care, comes the abortion question. Will abortion be covered in the Health care Reform Bill? The Senate Finance Committee is developing different amendments defining abortion coverage, and there are a lot of options to consider. The clash between pro versus anti abortion supporters in the House is not making the process any easier.
The issue must be clearly addressed; for prohibiting national coverage of abortion could affect existing female reproductive health rights. According to Time Magazine correspondent, Karen Tumulty, “It could, in fact, have the effect of denying abortion coverage to women who now receive it under their private insurance plans.” If the government plan does not approve abortion than the federal money provided to households for health coverage would not be valid towards a private insurance company that has abortion coverage.
One option is to distinguish that abortion coverage can only be paid with private funds, an amendment established by California Representative Lois Capps. However, this is difficult for lower income families who cannot afford paying themselves. Another option is for women to receive coverage from an insurance plan specific to abortion coverage, but since getting an abortion is not exactly a planned circumstance women are not always drawn to signing up.
In the eyes of pro-choice supporters, women should not be denied the right to abortion and some believe federal funding should provide full reproductive health services. Groups like Planned Parenthood, are afraid of losing the right to abortion coverage from private insurance companies as well. In The Nation piece “Healthcare reform—at the Price of Women’s Health?,” Sharon Lerner writes, “The Capps language could allow everyone to move past abortion and on to the larger matter at hand.”
Yes, I see Lerner’s point in that we should probably accept that federal money will not be used towards “babykilling,” but a national health plan is supposed to provide basic health coverage to every American regardless of their gender. Why are the health needs of women an issue that must go under the microscope?
In a National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) national survey of 1000 people, 66% favored a health plan supporting abortion. On the NWLC website it states that, “Americans strongly believe that health insurance should include women’s reproductive health services and that medical experts – not politicians – should decide the details of a benefits package.” I agree that medical experts should be more involved in the health care debate instead of politicians like Sarah Palin saying that Obama’s “evil” health plan supports “death panels.”
Medi-Gal 