I'm sure you've heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is:
This evening, at 11:15 p.m., the House of Representatives voted to pass their health insurance reform bill. Despite countless attempts over nearly a century, no chamber of Congress has ever before passed comprehensive health reform. This is history.But you and millions of your fellow Organizing for America supporters didn't just witness history tonight -- you helped make it. ... You stood up. You spoke up. And you were heard.
Actually, I wasn't heard. Because I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.
So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women's access to health care? It reads:
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
THIS IS FUCKED. [Update: A few more details at LGM.] NARAL for has more, as does Amanda.
As Sarah Jaffe put it, "Bart Stupak thinks he knows what I can do with my body. And Congress is voting to let him make that choice." A full 64 Democrats voted to take away your right to medical care. Shocker of shockers, they're all the vast majority are dudes. A couple of them are even men who have claimed to be pro-choice.
Writes Pilgrim Soul,
Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/"Democrats" onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.
Actually, they'll be explaining that it's not a big deal because the Stupak amendment can be stripped out by the conference committee (which I very much hope it will, but am not holding my breath) and because there are potential loopholes (though I have yet to hear a convincing one).
On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.
This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.
It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here.
And now, lest we get too depressed, a few next steps:
- Obama is probably asking you for money, too. Send a check to a pro-choice group instead. (Perhaps a check to Planned Parenthood, in Bart Stupak's name?
- Work on overturning the Hyde Amendment
- Ask a pro-choice woman to run for office
Other suggestions?
UPDATE: Go read Shark-Fu.
UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports,
But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.
"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Whose health care victory?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17031
Great post, Ann! I agree with every word. I'm tired of seeing how women's rights keep getting sacrificed in favor of "more important" concerns. I don't understand how some people can claim to be liberals and still support this atrocity. This is so wrong and so frustrating.
I agree with everything you have written. Women's reproductive health is so often segregated from so-called 'regular' health care. Look at the way clinics that provide birth control and abortions are set apart. Abortions are usually performed in clinics, not in hospitals. This of course makes those clinics easier targets for nutjobs who want to attack providers. This bill is just another example of how reproductive care for women is considered less important and something that lawmakers can negotiate away. I agree that it is time to elect more pro-choice women, overturn the Hyde amendment and support groups that work for reproductive care to be treated as every other type of medical care is treated.
To be fair, why should the public plans cover elective procedures? I don't want to pay for someone's boob job or facelift, either. Sure, women also have the right to get a boob job if they so choose, but I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want to. I know of plenty of places who offer 'grants' or special payment plans for abortions for women who can't afford them. Perhaps this will give people incentive to donate to those kind of programs. Less beaurocracy involved there too, less red tape to deal with.
Really? You know "plenty of places?" Please tell! I worked on national, pro-choice hotline for several years raising money for women who cannot afford the full cost of an abortion, and a friend and I founded an abortion to assist women in our region. We NEVER had enough money and frequently had to turn women away. Those women probably had to carry pregnancies to term that they didn't want for the simple fact that they couldn't afford an abortion. Like a facelift or a boob job? Beyond insulting.
National Network of Abortion Funds
National Abortion Federation
Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project
Hersey Abortion Assistance Fund
Most clinics around here offer payment plans if women can't pay upfront.
Yes, they exist. And I assume you work with them often enough to know how many women they have to turn away? And when they're "up" and when they're "down?" Never mind - your post indicates that you're a charitable giver, not an activist.
But in my area, clinics do not let you pay in payments. You must pay in full and for those who cannot afford it they are forced to go through a pregnancy.
have you actually ever had to try and contact anyone on that list? Its very hard to reach them, service is off and on, they cant take everyone. The need is always much greater than whats available. trust me, its very difficult.
There is a MAJOR difference between a 'boob job' and abortion. Do you also support not covering pre-natal care and childbirth? Or lung cancer treatment? After all, pregnancy and smoking are choices. If we cover the results of those choices, then why in hell would we not cover abortion? Oh, I know, abortion offends some people. So I guess womun's rights are expendable and we can just equate an unwanted pregnancy with a 'boob job' /sarcasm.
Joan
If removing a fetus is no different than removing a spleen or an appendix, then it is no different than enhancing one's breasts or removing excess fat through liposuction. Let's be consistent.
Lung cancer and others are life threatening so they are needed health care. Not having pre-natal care can be life-threatening to newborns. Childbirth can become a life-threatening situation. Similarly, abortions that are needed to preserve health and life should be covered.
People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but anything that doesn't directly threaten their health is still an optional procedure. People can get covered through private plans if that is what they value in a plan and are willing to pay for. But my tax dollars should not have to go towards optional procedures. I, and a lot of other americans, can choose to donate to those organizations that help fund abortions with that money instead.
You don't think that perhaps deciding whether or not to get a boob job is not as life-changing as deciding whether or not to have a child? And then figuring out how to care for that child, work, get an education, etc.?
Some women might feel that a boob job is going to be essential to their career. I'm sure that feels life-changing to them.
Regardless, yes abortion can be a hard decision. But it still doesn't change the fact that it is (usually) an optional procedure.
By your logic, lots of things that are optional procedures are covered by insurance - knee surgery, hip replacements, for example. So, why should these things be covered, then, but not abortions?
Often times replacement surgeries take place to preserve further decay of a condition or prevent loss of limbs, in which I consider it a serious life/health issue. I must say though that I would hope that PT or other surgical alternatives be explored before $50,000 procedures like total replacements. I think that's how they roll in Canada's health system I think.
I see...so as long as you consider it a "serious" issue, it should be covered. What if I think it's not so serious, so what, they can just use crutches, as long as it's not life-threatening? There are numerous surgeries and prescription drugs covered by insurance which are also quality of life related and could all be considered elective. Cosmetic surgery is not usually covered for obvious reasons, but these things all are, as is abortion. I'm still not clear on why you're comparing cosmetic elective surgery to non-cosmetic elective surgery.
You are asking about my logic, and I'm telling you. You have the right to disagree with me. We're just exchanging opinions here. So yes, that's what I think :)
But why not cover cosmetic surgery? If it does come down to mental health, there is a substantial amount of the population that would argue that cosmetic surgery is a quality of life procedure as well. What are those obvious reason? Just curious.
Pregnancy can be life threatening. Also, if abortions aren't covered, the pregnant woman is going to give birth and someone has got to pay for that. Plus, caring for a child is not cheap- for the individual and the state. If reducing expense is really what you want, one abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for prenatal care + childbirth + the child's health care and schooling.
Joan
Actually, for many women who get abortions, it is not an "optional" procedure. Choice doesn't come into the picture at all, because other avenues of preventing or dealing with a pregnancy simply aren't available to a lot of women. If you happen to be someone from a white, middle-class background who has the resources and support to make abortion a complete personal "choice", then yes, it is an optional procedure. But that's not the case for a huge segment of the population. Many women are all but forced to get an abortion because of their family/relationship/socio-economic situation. That's why thinking of abortion solely in terms of choice can actually be harmful to the "pro" side of the argument. We need to stop thinking of abortion in these terms and start thinking of it, and debating it, in terms of a necessary procedure that absolutely NEEDS to be legally and readily available to any woman who wants, or, more commonly, NEEDS one.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Abortion is about a woman's health and life always. Carrying a fetus to term and giving birth is quite risky to the health and life of the pregnant woman. The expense and risk of a pregnancy are something women have the right to opt out of because they threaten women's lives. If someone wants a child, they can choose to assume those risks. But women who do not want children should not have to assume those risks and the state should not force women to assume risks by not covering a simple, safe medical procedure.
Joan
Trans women would argue that their boob jobs, vaginas and/or hormones are not *elective* surgeries, but essential for their mental health.
"People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but anything that doesn't directly threaten their health is still an optional procedure. People can get covered through private plans if that is what they value in a plan and are willing to pay for. But my tax dollars should not have to go towards optional procedures."
I was going to preface this comment with "I don't mean to be bitchy, but..." and then I realized, yes, I do mean to be bitchy. Because this is idiotic.
You do understand that health care covers a whole lot of things that don't directly threaten our health, right? That's part of the point of PREVENTATIVE care. Also, pregnancy does compromise your health -- that's the reality. It's a compromise that can be mitigated with pre-natal care, but pregnancy and birth are physically trying and extremely painful. They often require medical intervention. Under no other circumstances would a procedure to avoid a physical condition that results in extreme pain, limitations on your movement, and physical illness be considered purely optional, akin to getting a boob job.
Yes, abortion is an elective procedure. So is a double mastectomy when you only have cancer in one breast -- do you not want your tax dollars to cover that either?
And all that aside, your tax dollars DON'T cover abortion under U.S. law, which is part of the reason why this comment was so clueless and offensive. Google "the Hyde Amendment" if you're curious -- it's been around for a lot of years. Your tax dollars wouldn't have paid for abortions under the health care bill without the Stupak amendment -- google "the Capps Amendment."
What the Stupak amendment does is disallows PRIVATE insurance companies from offering abortion coverage to anyone who is part of the federal insurance exchange. Even where private premiums paid for abortion coverage are kept separate. Even where women pay out of pocket for private insurance. The Stupak amendment tells private insurers "You cannot offer abortion coverage."
You will look significantly less foolish if you do two minutes of homework -- or even read the post -- before you comment.
Oh, and prescription drugs are also often technically "optional" and "elective" when they're to relieve pain or discomfort or to enable you to live your life rather than just to save your life. Are we cutting off access to painkillers now too? Or birth control? Or ADD medication? Or anti-anxiety meds?
You said:
"abortions that are needed to preserve health and life should be covered."
Unfortunately, the Stupak amendment doesn't have an emergency clause. I remain confused as to why you've cast your lot with the patriarchy, and why you've chosen to put your tax money ahead of the health and welfare of millions of women.
Aren't there clauses in the health care bill that already prohibit public spending on "elective procedures?" If so, and medical professionals agree on what constitutes an "elective procedure," then why does this amendment single out abortions, when--by your logic--they should already be considered elective? If such clauses do not exist, then why does the only elective procedure amendment single out abortion, and abortion only? How in the world do you not see this amendment for what it really is: a blatantly political step towards the total dismemberment of reproductive rights in the US?
As a last note: you have absolutely no right to make the judgment about whether a procedure significantly impacts the "health and life" of an individual. Only a medical professional and the person in question can make that decision. That you would have the hubris to take others' health decisions into your own hand is sickening.
Sometimes women and girls who are unable to get safe, legal abortions either (a) commit suicide, or (b) have an unsafe, illegal abortion.
So, yes, abortion is totally elective, if you believe that the health and lives of women and girls is optional.
Just out of curiosity... does this legislation still cover Viagra and Cialis?
It better not, because I'm offended by old men getting it up and getting it on...
yes, yes it does.
bullshit.
Along those same lines, does it cover Birth Control?
I highly doubt it, given where this discussion is going.
Medicare and Medicaid already cover birth control, Pap smears, and pelvic exams. There is little chance the new bill will be any different in that respect.
women can still buy private insurance to cover their face-lift or breast augmentation, but this amendment makes it ILLEGAL for women to purchase private insurance for abortions. Besides women don't get plastic surgery because they were rapped, or might die in child-birth, or can't afford a child, or they simply made a mistake there is BIG BIG difference.
Insurance covers breast augmentation?
The National Network of Abortion Funds has led a campaign against the Hyde Amendment for the last several years. You can find out more here: http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/
I could be wrong, but I have yet to see anyone comment on how health care reform will effect the deficit. I know there are tons of women on here who are financially savvy, so can I hear from some of you? I mean, sure, health reform sounds beautiful, but there must be some economic downside.
CBO says it will reduce the deficit over 10 years by at least $12 billion.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387
Yeah, contact the Dems who betrayed women and let them know how much they suck. I plan on calling my rep tomorrow and letting him know that I'm going to do everything in my power to get the word out and see that he's defeated come next election.
I posted the contact info for all 64 Dems here.
(Also, it wasn't all men. There were 1 or 2 women in the bunch. Finding that out filled me with rage.)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi also agreed to let the amendment be voted on, then pushed the bill after.
How is this any different from the Hyde amendment? Has anything really changed?
Yes, it is a little bit different. Now, women are forbidden from purchasing a health insurance plan that covers abortion if they receive a federal subsidy. This means that the insurance that they are paying for (yes, they would be receiving federal funding to help, but they are still paying) cannot include abortion coverage. It essentially allows the potential for "good" insurance to include abortion coverage, and thus be available exclusively to wealthy women.
I agree with everything here, but I just wanted to point out that not every dem who voted on the amendment was a man, because my rep, Marcy Kaptur, also voted for it. she's been known to be anti-choice, though I wasn't actually aware of that until yesterday, and now I like her a whole lot less than I used to.
In regards to borrow_tunnel's comment, I believe the figure I saw was that this plan should reduce the deficit by $109 billion over ten years, but I could be off on that.
As for the screw-job that abortion coverage got... I'm pissed, but I am happy that the bill passed. They absolutely should not have sidelined reproductive rights, I totally agree, but this is definitely a case where it's easier to fix a problematic aspect of the program once it passes than to get it right from the start. The overall benefits to millions of Americans, male and female, are huge if this thing passes the Senate. They CAN strip the amendment in committee, although I agree that I'm not certain they will, but they can also go back and fiddle with the legislative language once its in place.
Is that a comforting answer? Absolutely not. But there is a larger issue. Digging in our heels on the abortion issue could have sunk the whole thing, which would have been very, very bad. I totally wish it didn't have to be that way, that we didn't have to make that choice, and I do think that turning up the heat on pro-choice issues is a good thing - let's everyone know that while we're happy about healthcare, we're not happy about what we had to do to get it off the ground.
Still, I think that the people who voted for the bill can't be blamed TOO much. I'm sure plenty of them didn't like this change, either, but they knew that we HAD to get this bill passed... for the sake of all the GOOD stuff that's in it.
Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There's the opposite side to the coin here, though. The Stupak Amendment sets a precedent, just like the Hyde Amendment did.
Could it be stripped in committee? Yeah, but I wouldn't count on it. This bill passed by five votes.
And there's a problem here that nobody's addressing: the goal of a public option is to create plans to compete with insurance companies. If the public option fails to provide abortion coverage it gives insurance companies strong impetus to either cut abortion coverage from their plans or to raise the price of the coverage as an added bonus.
The public option is meant to change the way we look at coverage. If it doesn't provide coverage for abortions it changes the expectations for plans industry-wide.
This could be the beginning of a major step backwards in regard to providing abortion. Could this be remedied? Yes, but I don't think it will be. Current support for abortion is waning, and if the government doesn't endorse it or help provide it we could start to see the Stupak Amendment as a more gradual shift away from providing abortion services.
And this ignores the economic stratification aspect, i.e. rich women being able to purchase abortions due to their coverage and poor women not having sufficient funds.
Do poor women have insurance that covers abortion now?
Not to my knowledge, but this whittles away coverage sold on the exchange, so the newly insured won't be getting abortion coverage in this new program, and it changes the industry enough to run the risk that fewer women will have access to abortion because their insurance providers will drop that part of their coverage.
I can't speak for poor women, of course, but I don't know if Feministing is qualified to assume on their behalf that they'd rather continue to lack any insurance than be granted insurance that doesn't cover abortion.
I'm in complete agreement, I just think we ought to look at this thing as a whole. In some ways it may be an achievement, but in other ways it could be the beginning of a move that reduces access to abortion on a rather wide scale.
I'm sure plenty of people, and women, could not care less about this, and are fine with their insurance not covering abortion, but that doesn't change the ramifications of altering the insurance industry radically in a way that could be conducive toward reducing abortion coverage.
This ought not be a "take it or leave it" situation. And I don't recall anyone here saying "torpedo the bill". But that's no reason not to recognize flaws in it. Particularly one as serious as this.
Judging from the vast majority of the comments here and the title of the original post, I'm going to say that Feministing seems very, very unqualified to speak for lower-income people. The answer to the question 'Whose health care victory?' is pretty fucking obvious to me, but it seems lost on both Ann, who wrote this post, and all but two or three of the commenters.
Yes, abortion is extremely important, but can people take off the Privilege Blindfold for just two seconds and actually look at the difference between being able to afford all health care except abortion and not being able to afford any health care at all?
I saw the same thing in the endless series of "Being A Woman Is Not A Pre-existing Condition!" articles complaining that specifically female health expenses weren't being privileged over treatment for things like diabetes or arthritis or AIDS or disabilities, as if those never affected women or anyone worth caring about.
So what if the amendment said that no insurance company that provided coverage for sex change operations could participate in the public option? Would you say the same thing? Is it no big deal that a segment of the population who wants and needs certain services will not be able to get them solely because of conservative/religious objections? I'm not talking about people of means--they can get a private abortion, no problem. That's not the main issue, although it is beyond irritating that virtually all private abortion coverage will be unavailable if it goes through. This is not a victory for women. And it's not a victory for poor women. It's a victory in a very broad sense for people in general, but it tramples on the reproductive rights of females and the males who care about them. And it's a slap in the face to all of us.
Who told you that poor women have quality insurance that covers abortion now?
"Digging in our heels on the abortion issue could have sunk the whole thing, which would have been very, very bad."
One problem with that line of thought is that the same thing was said about a public option, even by the President himself. But people with principle stuck to their guns and it wasn't left by the wayside despite the fact so many people were talking about how a public option would sink the bill, weigh it down, etc. People came together and decided a public option was something not to be left out and that they were willing to not support this bill if it was. Those people were told they should be supporting the bill and that a "public option could be added later" and that they were "splitting the party."I think one of the biggest problems with "liberals" is that even with the success of reviving a public option they still will be too hesitant and willing to throw things that should be core values over the sides in the name of "bipartisanship" or "progressive change". Does access to abortion need to be a fundamental right? If so, blatantly denying it for some women in this bill is a violation of a core principle, and if need be, just like the public option, there needed to be a real stance taken against it, even one that meant delaying the vote or sinking the bill.
I'm glad there were people who were so committed to a public option they were willing to "sink the bill" and saddened there wasn't a strong enough coalition willing to do the same thing for abortion coverage.
That is true - the public option was a "take it or leave it" situation. The alternative was, essentially, no health care for the uninsured. That wasn't the legalese, but that was the bottom line. The public option was what this whole thing was about, from the start. So of course we couldn't vote for a package that didn't include it.
But as much as I think abortion coverage SHOULD have been in there, it was not the central issue of THIS particular political fight. Allowing conservatives to force us into making the choice between two things that are important sucks, no two ways about it. But the surest way to undercut our political agenda is to allow ourselves to see EVERY fight through the lens of just a few issues.
We're feminists, but we're also progressives, and at times, there's going to be tension in our goals. Can't be helped, especially when the other side knows they can use that tension to split our coalition. The only palliative is to be sure that we keep our eye on the particular ball we're swinging for at that moment, and make sure we get the rest of our interests back in the game as soon as possible.
All that said, I HATE the Stupak Amendment, and as soon as healthcare is on line, I believe repealing it should be priority #1.
Actually, the public option wasn't critical, not even for the President. You say that it was the bottom line but there was a point in which the politicians and "progressive" leadership was willing to throw it out. People who opposed this move where labeled as being roadblocks to change, "too radical", too whiny, and needing to show party solidarity and support the President. They were accused of "not seeing the big picture" and not being in touch with those who needed any kind of health care reform. You may say it was the bottom line, but most people in a position to vote on it, and even the person in a position to sign it, are in disagreement with that statement. It was kept in b/c people backed it when politicians and party leaders said it had to go, even if it meant sinking the bill.
I am not suggesting the bill should have been completely left behind if not without this amendment, but that there at least should have been as strong a push to preclude this as there was to keep the public option. The argument against not fighting this amendment is the exact same one, almost verbatim even, that was used against the public option. I am not unhappy the bill passed, but think people who call themselves progressives need to rethink what they are willing to fight for. There were a hell of a lot of "progressives" clamoring that what we needed was health care reform of any kind and that a public option could be added later when people where able to accept it.
The bill passed, that is good. I would not have had this amendment be an all or nothing issue, but I think the lack of willingness to fight against it is unnerving and further sets a precedent. Couple this with Pres. Obama's statements made earlier about how historically, the gov't has not funded abortion, and I think it becomes clear that access to abortion is not considered important or necessary. I do not expect Dems to be a brick wall, but a little backbone would be nice as well as a little honesty.
So, now it's clear to me now that the real rule of law in this country is that abortion isn't legal unless you're raped.
Why....why....do people constantly see children as "punishment" for women who choose to have sex? Why do deny or affirm an emybro's personhood based on how that emybro was conceived?
I used to feel that pro-life people didn't have to "foot the bill" for abortions, but at the end of the day, if rape is where the line is drawn, pro-life people have to pay for all abortions.
Emybros don't magically become human if a women wasn't raped.
Up Next: Arrest/conviction required for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
So this is what I don't get, these are the same people opposed to government run health care right? They don't want the government telling them what they can do with their bodies, right? But here they have no problem not only telling women what to do with their bodies but also our money!!
It's just another way of showing how they don't trust women. If they can keep us pregnant they keep us under control and where they want us. So hypocritical it just makes me so mad.
im not sure its sensible to reduce women's health care to access to abortions. in this instance, access to federal dollars for abortions you mean to tell me nothing else ails women? or has the abortion debate warped folks sense to the point that its abortion or nothing?
to those that view abortions as "elective": I too, have first hand knowledge of so-called "elective" medical procedures. I was diagnosed with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in Feb. of this past year. Luckily for me, my treatment was laid out for me, step by step; I knew exactly what was necessary to overcome the bastard disease However, in my journey to recovery, I met many people that had the "option" of getting bone marrow transplants or going through chemo only. For many of them, bone marrow transplants were recommended, but not NECESSARY. By the elective logic, if people with leukemia opt for an unnecessary bone marrow transplant, that should not be covered, because it was not totally necessary. When it comes down to it, most medical issues are the patients choice, not absolute necessities. We, as a society, should not be dictating to people what is necessary and what is not. An abortion is necessary, if the woman needing it deems it as such.
to those that view abortions as "elective": I too, have first hand knowledge of so-called "elective" medical procedures. I was diagnosed with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in Feb. of this past year. Luckily for me, my treatment was laid out for me, step by step; I knew exactly what was necessary to overcome the bastard disease However, in my journey to recovery, I met many people that had the "option" of getting bone marrow transplants or going through chemo only. For many of them, bone marrow transplants were recommended, but not NECESSARY. By the elective logic, if people with leukemia opt for an unnecessary bone marrow transplant, that should not be covered, because it was not totally necessary. When it comes down to it, most medical issues are the patients choice, not absolute necessities. We, as a society, should not be dictating to people what is necessary and what is not. An abortion is necessary, if the woman needing it deems it as such.
to those that view abortions as "elective": I too, have first hand knowledge of so-called "elective" medical procedures. I was diagnosed with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in Feb. of this past year. Luckily for me, my treatment was laid out for me, step by step; I knew exactly what was necessary to overcome the bastard disease However, in my journey to recovery, I met many people that had the "option" of getting bone marrow transplants or going through chemo only. For many of them, bone marrow transplants were recommended, but not NECESSARY. By the elective logic, if people with leukemia opt for an unnecessary bone marrow transplant, that should not be covered, because it was not totally necessary. When it comes down to it, most medical issues are the patients choice, not absolute necessities. We, as a society, should not be dictating to people what is necessary and what is not. An abortion is necessary, if the woman needing it deems it as such.
On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care.
I can't understand how pro-choice advocates think they're going to convince people that abortion is nothing but another routine medical procedure, akin to appendectomy. If polls are any indication, a majority of Americans do believe that abortion is an issue with moral weight. By steadfastly denying this, I suspect you may end up alienating more people than you win over.
Contrary to MoveOn.org's premature claim, the amended House bill is no victory for women. This WAS INTENTIONAL. Months ago right wingers floated the "abortion coverage" balloon as a way to KILL HEALTH REFORM. (This was promoted by Chris Matthews on MsNBC several times.)
The Bart Stupak coat hanger amendment must be called what it is: Government mandated insurance discrimination against women of reproductive age that will COST WOMEN'S LIVES. With this amendment included the House "health reform" bill passed last night is NO VICTORY for women, and in fact may be unconstitutional.
Women's health is not a "special interest." Women's legal rights are not a "single issue" to be sacrificed for some "greater good." Women are the majority gender in the country and in the Democratic Party. They are supposed to PROTECT our right to equal treatment under law.
* Women pay more for health insurance coverage now, and will under this law if STUPAK remains, although they were promised relief from gender discrimination in health insurance.
* Women have less access to large employer-funded insurance over their lifetimes, and are more likely to have to resort to PUBLIC insurance plans, plans that will perforce officially discriminate against them.
* ONLY women are thus singled out: forced to buy special insurance IN ADVANCE, for coverage of legal medical services that NO ONE can anticipate and ONLY women need!
* Less-affluent younger women will simply be WITHOUT coverage for these medical needs.
There is no way to square the Stupak coat hanger amendment with "eliminating insurance discrimination by gender."
This now is simply a LIE.
Inclusion of the Stupak coat hanger amendment is as UNCONSCIONABLE as it was UNNECESSARY. I am disgusted with the Democratic leadership for allowing Bart Stupak and the Catholic Bishops to roll them. And I am disgusted with the 64 Democrats (and pro-choice Republicans) who voted to codify discrimination against women of reproductive age into law. What is the point of electing Democrats like this?
Prediction: If STUPAK is in a final health "reform" bill, and it passes, we will see poor women of reproductive age returning to back alley abortions while, ironically, subsidizing old men's ED treatment with their taxes and insurance dollars.
If the STUPAK COAT HANGER AMENDMENT remains in the final bill how could Democrats vote for it? How could Obama SIGN IT?
It's a victory for every woman, child and man without health insurance. It's a victory for everyone with a pre-existing condition. It's a victory for everyone who might lose their insurance before they hit 65.
One third of American women will have an abortion in their lifetime. This will not be covered. Diabetes, which affects about 7% of the population, will be covered.
That's not a healthcare system I can feel good about.
Diabetes requires ongoing, lifelong care that adds up to way than the cost of an abortion.
And actually, lots of those with diabetes caused it themselves or exacerbated the symptoms (if it was genetic) by their eating habits and lack of exercise. Why should I pay for those people to have treatment and drugs? Really, it should not be up to a minority of people to determine what treatment people can get.
Not covering abortion in the Public Option is one thing; not allowing private insurers to cover abortion if they want to participate in the Public Option is quite another. It is nothing but sexist and anti-choice and religiously motivated. Why not disallow coverage for medications for HIV? As long as you don't need it to live, what's the big deal? Then maybe you can get homophobic Republicans to vote for it (it's a gay disease still, right?).
Obviously. So if abortion affects more people, and is less expensive, why not cover it?
Besides the huge percentage of women that will have an abortion in their lifetime (and right now, 85% of private insurers cover it -- the amendment will actually TAKE THAT COVERAGE AWAY), 80% of women will become mothers at some point in their lives. Every pregnancy has risks associated with it to the mother and the possibility of genetic anomalies for the fetus. These issues rarely come up before at least 20 weeks, at which point the cost of an abortion is thousands of dollars and can rarely be covered out of pocket. It may not occur to you if you've never been there, but real women do rely on this coverage and in the name of so-called progress, they may not even be able to buy it with their own friggin' money. The current version of this bill is shameful.
Aleks, it's not a victory for any woman or girl without health insurance unless you believe that not guaranteeing pelvic exams, well visits, birth control, and abortion is a "victory."
It's not a "victory" unless you believe that forbidding women to even PURCHASE, with private funds, an insurance policy that includes abortion services is a "victory."
The Senate is not going to strip this bill of the Stupak amendment, and women are going to be even more restricted around the care of our own bodies than we have been to date. This "landmark bill" sets back women's health by 30 years, if not more.
Come back here when YOU can't get insurance to cover your abortion, or when YOU can't get routine pelvice exams paid for, or when YOU can't get birth control pills (but men still get ED medications!) and tell me how much better off you are.
Those girls and women who currently lack coverage for everything including abortion are now going to have coverage for everything but abortion. You can afford to be smug and snide because you've chosen to ignore the fact that women and girls also get asthma, diabetes, injured in accidents, injured by violence, and a thousand medical needs besides abortion.
Come back when YOU spend the last $200 in your bank account on a doctor's visit for strep throat and have to beg the pharmacist to give you the antibiotics on credit.
Come back when YOU go bankrupt at age 27 due to medical bills to the tune of $29,000.
Come back when the prescription medications YOU take cost $13,000 a year.
Come back when YOU actually read what's currently covered by Medicare and notice that pelvic exams, Pap smears, and birth control are already covered by the government and not likely to go anywhere in a new bill. Abortion I'll grant YOU, but overstating the case isn't helping your argument.
Come back when YOU read that it costs over $1,000 a day for a hospital stay under Medicare and realize that the new bill will cut that cost to the patient immensely.
Come back when YOU get your head out of your privileged ass.
Tinfoil is revoking your womanhood for having medical issues other than abortion. Please turn in your ovaries at the check-in desk on your way out.
YOU can't get routine pelvice exams paid for, or when YOU can't get birth control pills (but men still get ED medications!) and tell me how much better off you are.
Was it actually reported somewhere credible that women would lose funding for pelvic exams and birth control because of healthcare reform, or . . .?
I'm curious: about how much would an abortion cost? (I'm guessing somewhere between 500-1000 and that sure would have been hard/impossible to come up with at points in my life)
If this makes it through (grrrr) since a medical abortion is probably cheaper than a surgical one whether we'll see a trend more towards those..
It's weird, the country i live in has it illegal to pay for abortions other than through government money. The anti-abortion people brought that one in to close down one provider. Heh, i'm quite pleased..
In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance
* Medical procedures that end pregnancy
* Safe and effective
* Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
* Costs about $350–$900 in the first trimester
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.htm
For many if not most women you need to add in transportation costs and lost hours at work--having to travel for an abortion is the norm if you don't live in a major city. This is a further barrier for low-income women.
As much as the Stupak amendment pisses me off, it'll most likely get killed in conference. It's incredibly disappointing that shit like this amendment is proposed and supported at all, but it isn't final.
Now is the time for anger, sure, but we have to fight it and get the health care reform this country needs that doesn't penalize women.
And by "fight it," I mean the amendment, not our anger. XD
The house is generally considered more liberal than the senate now, because Pelosi is a stronger leader than Reid and because of the filibuster. I'm not saying the Stupak amendment will be part of the final bill, but it seems very likely.
You're right that the House is generally more liberal than the Senate, but once the two chambers pass a bill, they have to reconcile any changes between the two in conference. For example, if the Senate adds something during their deliberations, then members from both houses will meet to negotiate and make the two versions identical before it goes to the President. It is during this process that the Stupak amendment could likely get killed, if not before that.
"You're right that the House is generally more liberal than the Senate, but once the two chambers pass a bill, they have to reconcile any changes between the two in conference. For example, if the Senate adds something during their deliberations, then members from both houses will meet to negotiate and make the two versions identical before it [has to be passed by each house again before it] goes to the President. It is during this process that the Stupak amendment could likely get killed, if not before that."
Ah, you're right, I missed a step. Doesn't really change my point though. =)
It does, though, if the Stupak Amendment is necessary for it to pass the House, or the more conservative Senate.
Yep...it's a victory for me, too. I currently have national health insurance because I'm on federal disability (SSDI). I'm terrified of getting a job, not because I don't want to work - I desperately do - but because if I get a job, I'll be thrown off Medicare. If I end up becoming too sick to work again, I'll have to reapply for disability, which took me 8 months, then I had to wait two full years for my Medicare to even kick in.
I simply cannot afford to be without health insurance for two whole years again. I declared bankruptcy because of medical bills. If the plan outlined in this bill passes, I won't have that hanging over my head ever again. Because of my combined disabilities, there is literally no private health insurance plan that will take me as a customer. I have pre-existing conditions to beat the band. This bill is a victory. It is not entirely the victory I wanted, but it is undeniably a victory.
A deeply flawed victory, given that I'm still up shit's creek if I need an abortion, but prior to this, I was up shit's creek if I needed ANY medical procedure. If I have to choose between no insurance and flawed insurance, I'll pick flawed.
That is what is on the table here. It is not a battle between flawed insurance and perfect insurance taking place right now, it is a battle between flawed insurance and non-existent insurance. The Stanek Amendment was proposed not so much to prevent abortions (although it quite obviously will to a terrible degree if it is signed into law) as it was to prevent any kind of health care bill from passing at all. It would be nice if I could wait until a perfect bill passed, but I can't, and neither can millions of people like me. It's a victory.
Which is not to say there aren't millions of women who need abortion coverage; there are, unquestionably. These are also the same women who are unlikely to have any coverage at all. If we can get them basic coverage, we are helping them. Not to the degree we ideally could, but if they are prevented from paying for abortions due to the high cost of their other medical procedures, they will likely have more money left for an abortion should they need one. It's not perfect by any means, but it is incorrect to say this bill isn't any kind of victory at all.
Get the big health bill signed into law while we still can, then keep fighting the fight for abortion rights like we've never fought before.
I agree with this. This health care bill is so important that I think it needs to be signed into law first, and the Stanek amendment repealed later. Millions of lives will be saved or improved with this bill, and while the Stanek amendment is awful, it seems to CURRENTLY be the price of those lives. It's a terrible tradeoff, but it's one that can be changed later--once the health care bill is law.
Stupak, sorry. Got my pro-life names confused.
Thank you! This is indeed an imperfect first step, but it *does* help people. I obviously disagree with the Stupak amendment, but I'm happy that this passed at all. I'll be kicked off of my parents' insurance in April, and the medications and treatments I'm on just for chronic migraines are too expensive for me without decent insurance. I'm terrified I won't be able to afford anything since I don't anticipate getting a super stellar job with benefits after I graduate with a B.A. in English, ha. I'm going to count this as progress, finally.
Stupak Amendment, not Stanek...I ended up putting the last name of an old classmate in there by mistake!
Also, this was supposed to go under alek's post.
Contact your elected Representatives, even if they voted "no." Let them know how you feel. Apathy is our worst enemy.
http://www.stopstupak.org
Make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Bart Stupak’s name.
Please have Planned Parenthood send a thank you card to Bart Stupak:
Congressman Bart Stupak
2268 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Just putting it out there (for women who care enough that there were 64 Democrats willing to forego the rights of half the population, or for women who are going to wait and see if the amendment will be taken out in Committee, or for women who are going to wait and see whether Obama will take a stand on it).
Whatever your personal tipping point: De-register from the Democratic Party. Become an Independent. A Democratic Party that has lost the women’s vote will be a Democratic party bending over backwards to win it back. If they're going to chase Independents, make sure you're the Independent. There is no point aligning yourself with either party at this juncture, because they clearly Do Not Care. Make them care. If 50-60% of the party de-registers and become a large block of free voting agents? Suddenly, both parties might just start perking up and looking for ways to win that gigantic block over to their side.
I'm just saying - being loyal to Democrats is clearly doing jack shit for women. Something's gotta give.
Absolutely. There is not a dime's worth of difference between a party that doesn't sufficiently prioritize abortion and a party that wants a constitutional amendment to criminalize it.
My reaction was to inform the Obama Administration via email that I would love to donate my money to help the HCR bill, just as soon as the administration was willing to stand against the Stupak amendment and say that it is a compromise they are unwilling to make in order to pass this bill, and one they will fight to have removed before Obama signs it into law (if it indeed passes through the Senate).
I mean, fuck, this bill is already enough of a compromise without this compromise on women's health and women's rights. It's not the single-payer universal healthcare I and many others truly want, one most Americans would want if they weren't fed a 24/7 diet of "This Is Socialized Medicine/Government Takeover" bullshit from the MSM. But if this bill is going to include anything even resembling the Stupak amendment, I'm almost inclined to say I'd rather pass altogether until Congress can cover ALL Americans for ALL their healthcare needs.
I am frankly sick and tired of having the Democratic pander to women's rights until it comes time to vote on such an historic amendment. Thankfully, my representative, Rick Larsen, voted no on that piece of shit amendment, but I plan to send him a letter indicating I need his stance against an HCR bill with that amendment to be a lot stronger than that nay vote if he wishes to receive my continued support.
My advice: stop separating ourselves into niche identity groups, leave post-modernism behind forever, embrace a new sense of common purpose that draws people together, value unity over well-intentioned division, formulate a singular purpose and focus that is easily understandable to all, set up an excellent system of networking, meet frequently, draft qualified candidates from within our ranks, and encourage others to seriously entertain taking jobs in politics if not running for elective office themselves.
Speaking frankly here, soon we'll all be able to run for elective office, so why not start small, get experience, build some traction, then work up to greater and greater heights? How wonderful it would be to someday see a Feministing member as a Senator or Congressperson.
Y'hear dat, ladies? 52% of the population is a "niche" market.
It sickens me that this country is so unduly influenced by regressive, sexually repressed ignoramuses that it's possible for the Stupak amendment to be proposed, let alone passed. I remain disgusted with the gutless representation we have (of both parties) who can't get something like this right even with broad, significant popular support.
That said, I have to echo what "OklahomaExile" said above: in the long term getting not-for-profit national health insurance is only a good thing for the country, including for women. Once everyone has health coverage, broadening it to include reproductive services is a winnable fight. I know that's no comfort to the thousands and thousands of women -- and their unwanted children, of both genders -- in the meantime, but I have to balance that against the thousands and thousands of people who live healthier lives, or are allowed to live at all. Given the real world we live in, this is already more than I dared hope for.
Yes, we should all fight hard to get it stripped out of the Senate version -- as long as we get a Senate version passed into law. If I have to choose between a law with this feculant tumor on it and no bill at all, I'm afraid I have to plug my nose, support this one, and then get to work excising the boil.
The most glaring lesson the Bush administration taught me is that when you select the lesser of two evils, you get less evil. The Stupak amendment is a naked attempt to split women's support away from the healthcare bill, in an attempt to give cover to the cowards in Congress to not vote for it. I think punishing progressive representatives who vote for the lesser of two evils is a strategic error in this case.
...and I just donated another $100 to Planned Parenthood.
It's weird that everyone from the OP on is calling out Obama on this. Obama may be a "dude," but he doesn't run the House. Is it too jarring to acknowledge that Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed a vote on the Stupak Amendment and then pushed the bill through with the Stupak Amendment attached?
Only 4 replies here mention Obama out of 94 replies as of now. Pelosi and most other Democrats voted against the amendment. Unfortunately, the bill wouldn't have passed without it. Everyone here is calling out the 64 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment and wouldn't vote for a bill without it, effectively holding the bill hostage. The amendment explicitly restricts reproductive health care. Why shouldn't we be pissed about that? Aren't you?
*sigh* Maybe after 2010 there will be enough pro-choice Democrats to remove the amendment then. Doesn't look like it can be removed in committee and still pass the House.
I think you're right about where we have to go from here. But I am absolutely infuriated that we're stuck here because the feculant tumor shouldn't even be on the bill. If half the Dems who voted yes on the amendment had had the ovaries to stand up for my bodily autonomy, the Stupak amendment would be dead, the public option would still be alive, and a powerful message that Dems won't stand for that kind of bullshit would have been sent.
I agree that this is a very wrong and that the bill should never have been passed but there is no need to accuse it the democrats of voting this way because they're male. Also it is not only inappropriate it just baffles me that people must use these phrases like this for doing something thats right no one needs to "have the ovaries" or "have the balls" both are sexist remarks and may I remind you one of the most vocal advocates for"pro-life"/ anti abortion was a woman only showing there is little to no gender barrier here and that anyone can either see this bill as something that doesn't matter to them and could give a crap if it gets passed (which is an ignorant approach if anything) or do the right thing and realize that both women and men are part of the community. Meaning that both deserve equal chance for health care and that if that means that some religious freaks think women don't have the choice to abort a pregnancy then thats their problem not the countries. and you should care more about someone's beliefs and thoughts than their gender.
This may be a naive question and/or not how the process works, but why weren't there any Dems who were willing to say they wouldn't vote for health care reform if the Stupak amendment passed? Do we have no congressperson who feels strongly enough about reproductive rights to make a bold stand against this kind of offense? Not that I necessarily would want the entire health care reform bill held up over this, but I wish there were a leader who felt strongly enough about women's health care to do something radical about it.
I guess I'm wondering if there was any way for the reform bill to pass without the Stupak amendment - i.e. was the one republican vote necessary?
The Republican vote was not necessary. The conservative Democratic votes were.
The bill passed by five votes. I would say no, this bill would not have passed without the Stupak Amendment. It was needed (unfortunately) to get the Democrats living in heavily anti-abortion districts to vote for the health care bill itself.
I fail to see how any amount of anger and fury-- justified though it may be (seem?)-- and discussing how "ifs" "should ofs" and "could ofs" might have changed the outcome.
Here is the situation boys, girls and others: the bill passed, with the amendment attached. For whatever reason, some people feel/felt that the bill wouldn't go through if this (and other compromises) weren't made. That's the truth of it. Argue all you like over it, it will remain the truth.
Justice and righteousness, solutions, if those are the things that you fight for, are never found in looking backwards and one's own rear-end in search of where the most guilty member(s) of a group movement is.
Soldier on, fellow feminists and social activists, soldier on. The only direction is up. (The enemy's gate is down? *tongue-in-cheek*)
Finally someone who is forward thinking its nice to see someone who wants to do something about this instead of placing blame.
Actually, I bet they thought they'd get Republican votes with the anti-choce amendment. And they only got one Republican vote in total. They try and try to kiss up to the Republicans--people who actually say they'll not vote for health care reform mostly because they want Obama to fail. So the bill we get is watered down and not nearly as robust and effective as it could be. Why? To try to please Republicans who wouldn't vote for it anyway. I bet none of those conservative Dems who voted for the bill did so because of the anti-choice amendment. It was not necessary. So placing blame and being disgusted are appropriate reactions. But action is the next step.
"Actually, I bet they thought they'd get Republican votes with the anti-choce amendment."
Why do you think that? The consensus among Republicans to oppose HCR has been clear and stated for months. Cao only supported it because he represents a liberal district and fears a Democratic challenger more than a Hoffman-style primary challenger. Not very many Republicans are in that position.
"I bet none of those conservative Dems who voted for the bill did so because of the anti-choice amendment."
What convinces you that mostly pro-life Democrats representing conservative districts would have still voted for the bill if Pelosi had blocked them from getting the Stupak amendment inserted?
Why wouldn’t the conservative Dems vote for it? I’m sure they were under pressure from Obama and the Democratic party. And their constituents, most of whom want access to health care. I could be wrong, but those against health care reform aren’t going to vote for it simply because there’s an anti-abortion part to it. The reason I think this is that abortion isn’t the main issue for the majority of voters; only for a tiny slice of voters. If a person thinks health care reform is going to turn us into Commies, allowing private companies to provide abortion services doesn’t seem to me to be that great an issue.
Why wouldn’t the conservative Dems vote for it?
Because it's unpopular in their conservative districts, and/or against their own interests and principles.
I’m sure they were under pressure from Obama and the Democratic party.
In a red district, one is hurt by association with Obama and the Democratic party and helped by being seen to defy them.
And their constituents, most of whom want access to health care.
In red districts most of their constituents probably do not want this HCR bill. The fact that you and I think they're being foolish and short-sighted is irrelevant.
I could be wrong, but those against health care reform aren’t going to vote for it simply because there’s an anti-abortion part to it. The reason I think this is that abortion isn’t the main issue for the majority of voters; only for a tiny slice of voters.
In red districts held by Democrats it's a major issue. Back when there were Republicans who represented blue districts many of them were pro-choice.
If a person thinks health care reform is going to turn us into Commies, allowing private companies to provide abortion services doesn’t seem to me to be that great an issue.
You are right, people who oppose HCR in principle on such apocalyptic terms (and I'm not mocking you, there are many of them) won't forgive voting for HCR because of the Stupak amendment. But they're not the only voters out there.
There are pro-lifers who support HCR, and pro-lifers who might forgive a vote for HCR but not one they perceive as expanding abortion coverage in a government subsidized program. A politician's job is to be good enough for a majority of their constituents, not perfect to anyone or acceptable to everyone.
"A politician's job is to be good enough for a majority of their constituents, not perfect to anyone or acceptable to everyone."
There wouldn't even be a Stupek amendment if the media were honest and stopped every conservative each time he or she said health care reform would force abortions or even provide abortions. But the conservative media is dishonest and millions of people are ignorant. It should be up to politicians to do what is in the best interest of their people; not to do what they perceive will get them votes. And still, virtually all Republicans voted against the bill, which still tells me that adding an anti-abortion portion was not necessary. Although I understand your viewpoint.
virtually all Republicans voted against the bill, which still tells me that adding an anti-abortion portion was not necessary.
A bill can pass without Republican support because there aren't very many Republicans left. Those that still exist represent very conservative districts, because in the last two elections almost all the moderate districts have elected Democrats. This is because of Bush, not because they've moved to the left. So now instead of needing the left wing of Republican Party (which right now pretty much means Cao) on board, Pelosi needed the right wing of the Democratic Caucus. If you think those conservative Democrats in Republican leaning districts, many of them vulnerable freshmen would have voted for HCR without the Stupak Amendment, then you should be furious at Stupak and Pelosi. But I think you're hugely underestimating pro-life sentiment in these normally Republican districts.
Then how come only 9% or so of people nationwide say being anti-choice is the most important political issue for them? I think it is a perception that abortion is the #1 issue to all conservatives regardless of anything else because a minority of people make so much noise about it.
But I can bet that those who are violently opposed to health care reform are also violently opposed to any and all reproductive rights. So where do you draw the line? Should we have to give in and only have faith-based sex education because that's what conservative districts want? Should we say no birth control can be covered in plans because that's also what they want? It should have not been allowed to have been part of the bill because it really has nothing to do with health care reform. If they insisted on saying "no abortions even if you're about to die", that should have been good enough for the anti-choicers. So why not just do that? Why affect all women everywhere in the country?
Angry emails and phone calls are good, but hardly a threat for these Anti-Choice Democrats or those in the Conference Committee. We need a real, clever strategy to defeat it before the final bill reaches the floor. In my view, the only effective way to get it stripped in the Conference Committee is for enough Pro-Choice Democrats to publicly declare that they will vote AGAINST the final bill unless Stupak is removed. Only if the leadership believes that without Pro-Choice votes the final bill would not pass, they would listen to them; otherwise they just take Pro-Choice votes for granted. Washington is just pure power game with numbers. How was Stupak able to threaten his way to get this amendment voted on? By threatening that they would vote against the bill without this amendment. Our side needs to the same, if we are to be taken seriously.
Once it is entrenched, I don't see a chance of it being repealed in a foreseeable future. How long ago was it that Hyde Amendment actually had a chance of getting repealed?
Also, with due respect to NARAL and Planned Parenthood, we need to seriously consider Jane Hamsher's points on the effectiveness of the pro-choice movement;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_349596.html
Everyone do yourselves a big favor and don't let any GOP/Teabaggers share their views of Rep. Ahn Cao with you. Twenty-First Century and they don't know they're supposed to hide their racism.
This anti-woman bill will come out of the Senate with misogyny intact. So millions of people will get health insurance at the expense of women's health.
Oh, well. Small trade-off, I guess.
What I'd like to see is all the people who fight for the rights of insurance companies when they kick out people with pre-existing conditions and they deny coverage for needed procedures and medicines to rise up and show their outrage at this obvious slap in the face to "free market principles". I mean, they don't like any kind of regulation at all, so it will be interesting if they stand up for the principles they pretend are so near and dear to their hearts. But I'm not holding my breath.
Hi,
My name is Laura and I am an outreach coordinator for the health videos website icyou.com.
I wanted to add to the discussion by posting a couple of links to videos all about health care reform. For those of you looking for more nonpartisan, unbiased information about health care reform, politics and general policy we have topic pages for each of these areas of interest.
http://www.icyou.com/topics/po.....are-policy
http://www.icyou.com/topics/po.....are-reform
http://www.icyou.com/topics/politics-policy/healthcare-politics
Check out icyou for information on more health-related topics...we update daily!
Thanks,
Laura
I thought anti-choice monsters on the right (regardless of party) and their Stockholm-syndrome-stunned fellow travelers had already skinned reproductive rights to the bone in the "negotiations" previously. This feels like they just wanted to pour salt on raw wounds. Just because they could.
Stupack and his masters also obviously crafted it as a bomb to be dropped at the last minute -- I can't believe how unprepared the House managers were. I'm pretty sure that if they hadn't been so blindsided they might have mounted an effective opposition instead of letting it get to a floor vote.
For instance it would have been nice if anybody had asked for a CBO score on the Stupak amendment. Hard to imagine a $500 termination hitting the Federal Budget harder than $10,000 for a health term delivery, or $20-30,000 for a c-section, let alone $100,000+ for care for a woman who had a preeclampsia-induced stroke late in an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy.
That might have been a zero-cost no-brainer now, while coverage can still be declined because pregnancy is a preexisting condition. But presumably the new bill is going to stick both private insurers and any public providers with an itemized bill.
A CBO score will almost certainly reflect that. And it's not too late! While it's too late for the House version a big fat CBO score would complicate its survival in the Senate and during reconciliation.
Add this to the list of things to be done sooner than later.
figleaf
It could be much more than a mere $100,000. Low birthweight babies could even be in the millions. No or little prenatal care (which is the case for those who deny they're pregnant or try to hide it from their parents) leads to very expensive births. It makes fiscal sense to provide abortions. I bet that's the only reason insurance companies provide them. I would think they'd be irritated that they will no longer be able to provide abortions for members because now their pregnancy and perinatal costs will greatly increase. It would be funny if the health insurance lobby pressured for the removal of this amendment.
Something else we can work on to stop this, from Matt Yglesias: bring pressure to bear to make sure the composition of the conference committee and the rules it operates under keep this abomination out of the conference report. After Saturday's ambush is something else that should *not* be left to chance. Anymore.
figleaf