Share

Abortion Amendment May Sink Health Care Bill

by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
(Photo Illustration: Ionia Kershaw / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: rui guerra, BlankBlankBlank/ flickr)

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment, barring private and public health insurance plans from offering abortions as part of basic coverage if they accept government subsidies, risks sinking the fragile health bill passed Saturday. President Obama and numerous Democrats say they will not support its passage with the amendment included.

House Democrats and advocates opposing the amendment fear it would put lower- and middle-income women, those most likely to use a public option and subsidized private plans, at risk for being uninsured at a critical time, as unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require abortion cannot be planned.

First introduced by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) and Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), the amendment would require women to buy separate "riders" to cover abortions, even if they otherwise paid for a full insurance plan. It passed with the support of 64 Democrats, a quarter of the party caucus, and the majority of Republicans - the health care bill itself, passed Saturday by a vote of 220 to 215, had only one Republican vote.

President Obama, in an interview with ABC News, voiced his opposition to the amendment, saying it needs "some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo." The existing legislation, in the form of the "Hyde amendment," prohibits federal dollars from being spent on abortion care. "And that's the goal," he said, voicing his opposition to the amendment.

Liberal House Democrats, led by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) and Louise Slaughter (D-New York), are leading a group of more than 40 Democrats, enough to block the passage of a final bill, in writing a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) threatening to withhold their support if federal funding for abortion services is strictly prohibited in the final legislative bill.

Dated November 7, the letter laments the possibility that health care reform could be misused to hurt rather than heal, and goes on to say, "The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law."

Slaughter, who is chairwoman of the Rules Committee, and DeGette, have also written to Obama, requesting a meeting to discuss the issue DeGette says will cause a firestorm.

"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," said DeGette, who predicts the amendment will be dropped as the underlying notion of the bill becomes clear to more moderate Democrats, who, she says, may have misunderstood that the amendment goes far beyond the existing ban on federal funding. "This would be the greatest restriction on a woman's right to get an abortion with her own money in our lifetime. The stakes could not be higher."

Rep. Deborah Wasserman-Schultz (D-Florida) also spoke out, saying Monday on "MSNBC," "I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there."

This legislative response comes on the heels of equally, if not more, vitriolic responses from advocacy groups. Planned Parenthood, one of the largest sexual and reproductive health care advocates and providers, said in a statement Saturday, "Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening ... This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.

"It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States. Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill. These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women."

President Obama campaigned heavily on a platform of comprehensive health care reform. "In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose ... Essentially, what we're doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance," he said in a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007. "It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."

More recently, however, he moderated his position. "This is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions," Obama said. "I want to make sure ... that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices."

Advocates say the limiting language of the amendment can only hurt those who are already most vulnerable. According to a 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation study, about half of people with private health insurance are in plans which include abortion coverage, which the amendment may limit if companies opt to receive government subsidies, and in places such as Washington State, where abortion is already covered by the state medical assistance, coverage runs the risk of being removed.

Planned Parenthood sees the issue of coverage of abortion services is more than one of simply accounting - for many women, it believes, it is a matter of life and death. "Together, women and their allies are going to make their voices heard, so that they do not become second-class citizens in a newly reformed health care system in the United States."

  

»


Yana Kunichoff is a Truthout intern.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

defund viagra

defund viagra

Once again Obama comes

Once again Obama comes through in flying colors, mouthing his support for two antithetical positions at the same time. Obama stands for nothing but political expediency. You just never know whose side he's on until he knows how many votes he needs to pass something. I miss George Bush's stubbornness in defending his own misguided and insane positions. At least he FELT something. At least his positions were predictable. Here with Obama what we can expect, in the end, is that leftist positions will be hacked away piece by piece until nothing of them remain.

Good. Rewrite entire thing

Good. Rewrite entire thing and fight for singlepayer. See groups like www.pnhp.org and Health Care-Now.

Let's hope SOMETHING can

Let's hope SOMETHING can sink this bill. The entire direction of the bill is wrong: instead of using the progressive income tax we have an "unfunded mandate" that is a massive burden on the middle class. If the politicos insist on keeping the disfunctional private insurance system, the least they can do is fund it via a progressive income tax, giving everyone a voucher to purchase a minimal insurance policy. That's the only way to prevent this so-called "reform" from becoming just another tax on the poor and middle class.

IF SLAUGHTER'S REALLY IN

IF SLAUGHTER'S REALLY IN SUCH A DITHER ABOUT THE ABORTION VOTE, WHY DID SHE CRAFT A RULE -- SHE CHAIRS THE RULES COMMITTEE-- THAT MADE IT ONE OF THE FEW OPTIONS MEMBERS GOT A SEPARATE VOTE ON? I PERSONALLY THINK SHE'S RIGHT, BUT WONDER WHY Y'ALL WHO ARE SO UPSET WITH THE OUTCOME GIVE A PASS TO THE ONE WHO MADE IT POSSIBLE?

Why is it so often older,

Why is it so often older, white men who are hell-bent on restricting women's access to health care?

The time to vote against a

The time to vote against a healthcare bill that includes anti-abortion legislation was before it headed to the conference committee (as Kucinich did). These democrats who are pledging to vote against any final bill that might have the Stupak amendment included, don't take into the account the possibility a majority of the Republicans being for the future bill. This is especially true if the future bill will be weakened further by the senate version.

For crying out loud,

For crying out loud, Democrats control Congress. What the hell is going on up there in Washington!? A basic medical procedure not covered!? These lunatics make it sound like people are lining up for abortions like flu shots. Pathetic, just pathetic.

As bad as the Stupak-Pitts

As bad as the Stupak-Pitts amendment is in its substance, it is equally bad in its promulgation. It was produced by (1) a total lie, in the claim that it would"only" make sure that the Hyde amendment applied -- instead Stupak et al went far beyond Hyde; and (2) the intervention by a religious cabal in the development of its provisions, in stark violation of the Constitution. It must be written out of the final measure. If it isn't, there will be no health care reform because this kind of shell game cannot be tolerated. And those in Congress who really think that they are more beholden to "faith" than to law will be left to their faith, out of the offices dedicated to law.

HEY ENOUGH OF THIS GODDAMN

HEY ENOUGH OF THIS GODDAMN VOODOO HORSESH1T! Open your eyes and READ just how F`ING DUMB these obstructionist idiots are http://m.www.yahoo.com/_ylt=An1.YTa1XZEmcuPSAOJGWbObvZx4/SIG=11bs8vbn9/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/politico/29456 ---YEAH IT`S BEEN IN THE REPUBLICLODS BILL SINCE 1991!!!! Now knock it the hell off and let the man do the job he was DULY ELECTED to perform! After all you stooges let a war criminal and thief steal the Whitehouse illegally start 2 wars and bankrupt all of society BUT the other thieves that bribed his way into office TWICE

HEY ENOUGH OF THIS GODDAMN

HEY ENOUGH OF THIS GODDAMN VOODOO HORSESH1T! Open your eyes and READ just how F`ING DUMB these obstructionist idiots are http://m.www.yahoo.com/_ylt=An1.YTa1XZEmcuPSAOJGWbObvZx4/SIG=11bs8vbn9/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/politico/29456 ---YEAH IT`S BEEN IN THE REPUBLICLODS BILL SINCE 1991!!!! Now knock it the hell off and let the man do the job he was DULY ELECTED to perform! After all you stooges let a war criminal and thief steal the Whitehouse illegally start 2 wars and bankrupt all of society BUT the other thieves that bribed his way into office TWICE

Medicare for All is the only

Medicare for All is the only answer to our health care problems. I plan to only vote for progressives in future elections, including President. It is time for REAL Change!

Un-freakin'-believable. If

Un-freakin'-believable. If it weren't necessary to keep the Repugs in check, I wouldn't be a Democrat! This just proves that the whole mess really is just health Insurance reform(or more appropriately, health insurance security; for insurance companies), nothing to do with healthcare itself. insurance is the problem, not the solution. Now its being used to forward religious agenda. Pathetic....

The truly sad irony of this

The truly sad irony of this amendment is that any woman who wishes to casually use abortion as a form of birth control can easily do so without any health insurance by simply educating herself and cultivating a couple of perfectly legal plants around her house. The women who need medical abortions, the kind performed by doctors and paid for by health insurance, are those who have had a truly tragic event in their lives that is a deal breaker for a pregnancy. A fetus dies in utero; a woman is betrayed by her spouse and abandoned homeless and broke knowing that without plenty of protein in the last trimester a child will most likely be born with mental retardation; a woman discovers she has a serious illness that will end her life if she takes a pregnancy to term. Each of these represents a woman who made a commitment to have a child only to discover that it is not something she can do at the time, for reasons outside of her control. These are heart breaking tragedies in and of themselves and should not be compounded with problems introduced by ignorant and callous men who will never be able to understand, much less know such despair. In the meantime the women who refuse to be tamed and used, and who are the real targets of the the anti-abortionists, have our own ways and don't need any stinking insurance to live our lives as we see fit. This has been true for centuries, and is still true today.

THIS IS A BAD BILL AND

THIS IS A BAD BILL AND DESERVES TO DIE... why and how the anti-choice people are deciding our healthcare future is an obvious problem but the real issue is why are we not getting the single desk option to vote on? Denis Kucinich voted against this bill and he's right in his decision not to support the for $$PROFIT$$ insurance carpetbaggers... let this bill die and start from scratch and get it right... a single desk system is the only option that needs to be voted on... simple yes or no vote and let us voters know who's with us and whos against us.

So rip the amendment out, it

So rip the amendment out, it already passed the House. Strong arm a couple of liberal republican senators and shove it down Lieberman's throat. Does anyone really care what the right thinks anymore?

When does life begin? Since

When does life begin? Since this bill, in part hinges on the issue of abortion, we must readdress this question. For those of us that believe it starts at conception, it is wrong to force them to go against their faith and support abortion with their tax dollars. This my friends is not freedom, and does not reinforce the founding principles of our country. Those who are pro-abortion, the law currently allows you to go do so. But, that is your free choice and your right under current law. But for those that believe it is murdering an unborn child, it is simply not right to force that upon those that don't share your view. If you think it does, then just wait until some issue comes up that forces you to support something you don't believe in.

MEDICARE FOR ALL.... Just

MEDICARE FOR ALL.... Just making it available to all who want to subscribe would help re-inflated funding for Medicare...

Take the Abortion Amendment

Take the Abortion Amendment out.... They can always try to add it later on...

Dump the Amendment now and

Dump the Amendment now and try to bring it back next year... or the year after... the year after that...

Dump the entire bill!

Dump the entire bill! Although it has a few good things in it, it's main effect will be to INCREASE profits for the evil health insurance industry and big pharma and for people who invest in those evil corporations. The public option is so restricted that only people too sick for corporate-run health insurance will be able to get it, and thus it will INCREASE costs instead of decreasing them. Even without the anti-choice provision, the bill does more harm than good. Kill the entire thing. Pass Medicare for all next year! Pledge not to vote for, and to campaign against any Democrat or Republican who does not fight for Medicare for All.

>Mighty fine play, Joe

>Mighty fine play, Joe Boy! >>Thanks uncle Dick. >Joe Boy, when we take over the congress next year we're gonna agree to the secession of a number of as yet unspecified states which will form a new nation of numskulls, know-nothings, and good ol' boys o' various types. Joe Boy, you gonna fit there real nice. >>Thanks uncle Dick. I guess that means I'll have to leave CT. >Joe Boy, you gonna get your own horse!

People always seem to

People always seem to complain about how "old white men" are taking basic medical rights away from women by not covering abortion under general medical insurance.. I don't understand this. It is NOT just men who don't want their tax dollars to be able to be used for killing unborn children. I am a young woman and while I feel sympathetic towards those poor few who have dangerous pregnancies, I can absolutely not support abortion as a solution, because even in the rare cases where it may spare the woman's life, she will still have to live with the knowledge that she is alive because her child is dead. There is still an innocent life ended. I don't want me or my taxes or insurance to have anything to do with intentionally ending the life of innocent pre-born babies.

@When does life begin? Since

@When does life begin? Since (Fri, 11/13/2009 - 16:28) Guess what? Half of MY tax dollars go to kill hundreds of thousands of people around the world! Do I get a choice? ******* @ People always seem to (Sat, 11/14/2009 - 13:48 ) since when does your worry about someone else having a hard time living with her choices mean there should be a law against something? This is the whole problem with the anti-abortion debate. No one is forcing anybody to get abortions. If someone gets one and regret sit, that's not your problem. If someone gets one for a reason you disagree with-- maybe she has sex!-- that's not your problem. I know so many women like you who are so against abortion-- until they or their daughter needs one. It's a personal choice. None of anyone else's damn business. AGAINST ABORTION? DON'T GET ONE!!

@natasha- I will never

@natasha- I will never "NEED" to kill my baby. I would rather die than kill an innocent child. That being said, I realize that some women don't feel the same way and may still go and get illegal abortions, but at least then my money and insurance will have nothing to do with it. Of course I wish nobody would kill their pre-born children, but if they do, I absolutely do not want to be connected in any way, which I would be if my taxes paid for their procedure.

I just heard the "plain

I just heard the "plain language" text of the Stupak Amendment a few nights ago on NPR [certainly not far Right wing]. I don't see how it does anything more than the Hyde amendment. Only people in the "public option" or who receive government stipends to buy insurance would need to buy riders covering abortion. And nothing I heard would limit anyone from getting an abortion with their own funds. If I am wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, what's the problem?