Dear Senators Bunning and McConnell,
I do not believe we have met. By which I mean, how dare you assume your position as my Senator entitles you to make my health care decisions for me. Earlier this week, you both stood in staunch support for the Nelson-Hatch amendment, an amendment that would keep struggling women like me from making decisions about my health care.
Let me elaborate: my husband, our family's breadwinner, works full time for a company that helps provide my family with decent health insurance. Unlike many Americans, I have few complaints about the insurance I carry. My children have top-notch pediatric care, emergency coverage, and dental. My husband and I both have preventative care, low emergency deductibles, and affordable copays. We paid very little out of pocket for the birth of our children, which is wonderful considering my last birth ended in a complicated c-section. This is not to say the insurance provider is not facing its own financial obstacles, which is why the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House and its Senate counterpart troubled me. In the event the insurance company decided to become federally subsidized, my personal health benefits, from a private insurer, would be limited. And why? Because I am a woman. Because my health care is not my own business. Because legislators like the two of you believe the government should have the power to regulate the kind of health care I can access for myself. And all this from two Senators who routinely run attack ads condemning government intervention in private lives!!
Senators, I am no lawyer. I am a part-time pre-school teaching assistant with children of my own and a mortgage the size of Texas. I cannot fully grasp the interworkings of our government, much less the novel-sized health care bill now in consideration. My understanding of legal text is limited, but I have friends who work in health legislation and law. These friends have made it abundently clear to me that the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which you both supported, would not only limit abortion coverage in my health plan in the event my insurer became federally-subsidized: the language is such that my ability to make decisions regarding contraception or even pregnancy and birth would be severely limited, all because my insurance company decided, without my family's consent, to receive federal subsidy. Why the massive assault on women's health? Abortion is legal in this country, so why do you continue to strike down efforts to provide women with better access to choice?
Senators, I am not only writing for myself. I am writing for my daughter who will grow up in a world where her body is the basis for political attack, where my son's future family will be forced to make reproductive decisions based not on their personal preference, but on the way financial restriction dictates them to live.
Sincerely,
Rosa
Shepherdsville, KY
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Statements from women's and repro-rights groups on Nelson-Hatch failure
I cannot yet find statements from SisterSong, ChoiceUSA, YWCA, or Fem Majority. But here are some of the statements released from women's and repro- rights groups regarding the failure of the Nelson-Hatch amendment last night. CPC Watch's quick and dirty statement can be found here.
From NARAL Pro-Choice America:
Senate Rejects Divisive Attack on Abortion Rights
NARAL Pro-Choice America credits activists, mobilization efforts for defeating abortion-coverage ban in Senate bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate for standing up to anti-choice pressure groups and rejecting an amendment aimed at derailing the health-reform process.
Keenan also called the Senate's action a victory for pro-choice activists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Senate offices with calls, email messages, and petition signatures calling on senators to reject efforts to add an amendment similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment.
The Senate voted by a 54-45 margin to table the amendment offered by anti-choice Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), essentially defeating the amendment.
"My heartfelt appreciation goes to all the pro-choice Americans who joined us in calling on the Senate to reject anti-choice attacks in health reform," Keenan said. "We salute our pro-choice allies who worked so hard to stop this attack that could have caused women to lose coverage in the new health-care system. The bill already includes a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds may be used for abortion care. That's deeply disappointing to us, but the Nelson-Hatch proposal, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, would have gone much further, making it virtually impossible for private insurance plans that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.
"We had an important win today, but the fight is far from over. We will mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to stop additional attacks in the Senate and work to ensure that the final health bill does not include the dangerous and divisive Stupak-Pitts language that's currently in the House bill."
Last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America unveiled a TV ad that's running in key markets in four states. The ad followed a December 2 event on Capitol Hill where the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day that called on the Senate to say "no" to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
Like the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
The amendment also includes other egregious provisions that undermine a women's right to choose:
From the National Organization for Women:
NOW Applauds Senate Defeat of Abortion Ban Amendment,
Urges Removal of Stupak-Pitts in Conference
Statement of Terry O'Neill, NOW President
December 8, 2009
The National Organization for Women applauds the Senate for voting to table and effectively defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This victory is just one small step, however, toward enacting health care reform that recognizes health care as a human right, abortion as health care and women as deserving of coverage that meets all of their medical needs.
The Nelson-Hatch Amendment would have instituted a ban on abortion care coverage in the proposed health insurance exchanges, which are expected to serve tens of millions of people. It would have far extended the Hyde Amendment's already shameful restrictions on abortion funding. It would have betrayed the promise that no one would lose health care coverage they currently have due to reform. And, in all likelihood, this prohibition on abortion coverage would have spread industry-wide in little time.
That's why NOW is thanking all of our activists for the many messages they sent and calls they made to their senators. Our early and strong call to reject any health care legislation containing Stupak-Pitts language made its mark. Our virtual and physical presence on Capitol Hill helped send the message that health care reform should not be negotiated on the backs of women. We thank the 54 senators who listened to our concerns and considered women's health and well-being as they voted.
The bad news is that the similar Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which the House did pass last month, is still in place. When the two versions of the bill are reconciled and merged into one, abortion opponents will no doubt demand that the Stupak language be maintained in order to win their votes on the bill. We cannot let this happen.
Make no mistake, the efforts of the radical right are to outlaw all abortion. They will use whatever method is convenient, and right now that happens to be health care reform. They want women's rights supporters to compromise, but they won't budge an inch. Well, in case they haven't noticed, we're done compromising. NOW urges legislators to oppose the entire bill unless the Stupak-Pitts provisions are removed in conference. Women's lives are at risk, and our rights are not for sale.
###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906
From the National Abortion Federation:
Dear supporter,
Thank you for taking action during the past several weeks by writing letters to the editor and urging your Senators to vote against the Nelson-Hatch Amendment. We defeated this restrictive amendment in the Senate today.
Last week, NAF brought a group of patients to Capitol Hill to share their abortion experiences with legislators. Each of these women had a different experience with insurance coverage for their abortion care, and they represent the women who could be affected by restrictions like the Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch amendments.
Today, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) cited some of our patient's stories during debate on the Senate floor. NAF member and author, Professor Carole Joffe joined us last week in DC and spoke with some of the patients we brought forward. This week, she blogged about her experience:
"The day was full of fiery speeches by legislators and advocates...however, the most moving and significant part of the day was my conversation with three women who had later abortions. They were introduced to me by staff from the National Abortion Federation. All three women--Dana, Christie, and Mary--had experienced much wanted pregnancies that took nightmarish turns. Read more
Even though we were victorious in the Senate today, the fight is not over; we must continue to work to stop additional attacks in the Senate and ensure that the final health reform bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts language that’s currently in the House bill. Support NAF's work to bring the voices of patients forward to ensure health care reform does not further restrict women's access to abortion care.
From the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:
Great news — minutes ago, the Senate voted on the anti-choice Nelson/Hatch amendment to health care reform, and we won! Unlike the Stupak amendment that passed the House of Representatives, this amendment did not pass the Senate!
This is a huge victory — and your e-mails and phone calls helped make it happen. Thank you. While we still have a long way toward health care reform that ensures quality, affordable health care — including reproductive health care — for all, defeating the Nelson/Hatch amendment today was a big step forward.
As you likely know, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch were behind the anti-choice amendment, and the language was virtually identical to the Stupak amendment. As we saw during the vote in the House of Representatives, anti-choice groups were lobbying hard to pass it. But, the Senate agreed with us this time: eliminating choice for millions of women with private health insurance is a price we can't afford to pay for passing health reform.
We still have a long way to go. I'm certain that there will be significant hurdles ahead, and I'm glad to know, as always, that we can count on your help. Just for today, though, please know that we did something great together. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:
Breaking News!
An Important Victory
The Senate voted on Dec. 8 to table - and therefore defeat - the onerous Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This amendment, which mirrored the Stupak-Pitts language approved by the House of Representatives, would have expanded abortion restrictions and trampled on the rights of those who believe that abortion is a moral option.
The work of religious advocates was key to this success. We will keep working with our congressional allies and sister organizations to ensure that health care reform is finally approved and that it protects against further assaults on women's reproductive rights.
---
Feel free to link to other statements below. I'm feeling unified and fired up!
From NARAL Pro-Choice America:
Senate Rejects Divisive Attack on Abortion Rights
NARAL Pro-Choice America credits activists, mobilization efforts for defeating abortion-coverage ban in Senate bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate for standing up to anti-choice pressure groups and rejecting an amendment aimed at derailing the health-reform process.
Keenan also called the Senate's action a victory for pro-choice activists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Senate offices with calls, email messages, and petition signatures calling on senators to reject efforts to add an amendment similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment.
The Senate voted by a 54-45 margin to table the amendment offered by anti-choice Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), essentially defeating the amendment.
"My heartfelt appreciation goes to all the pro-choice Americans who joined us in calling on the Senate to reject anti-choice attacks in health reform," Keenan said. "We salute our pro-choice allies who worked so hard to stop this attack that could have caused women to lose coverage in the new health-care system. The bill already includes a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds may be used for abortion care. That's deeply disappointing to us, but the Nelson-Hatch proposal, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, would have gone much further, making it virtually impossible for private insurance plans that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.
"We had an important win today, but the fight is far from over. We will mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to stop additional attacks in the Senate and work to ensure that the final health bill does not include the dangerous and divisive Stupak-Pitts language that's currently in the House bill."
Last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America unveiled a TV ad that's running in key markets in four states. The ad followed a December 2 event on Capitol Hill where the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day that called on the Senate to say "no" to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
Like the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
The amendment also includes other egregious provisions that undermine a women's right to choose:
- Like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch proposal also forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 75 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would force plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 75 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they would make.
- Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan would have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, in the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 75 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
From the National Organization for Women:
NOW Applauds Senate Defeat of Abortion Ban Amendment,
Urges Removal of Stupak-Pitts in Conference
Statement of Terry O'Neill, NOW President
December 8, 2009
The National Organization for Women applauds the Senate for voting to table and effectively defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This victory is just one small step, however, toward enacting health care reform that recognizes health care as a human right, abortion as health care and women as deserving of coverage that meets all of their medical needs.
The Nelson-Hatch Amendment would have instituted a ban on abortion care coverage in the proposed health insurance exchanges, which are expected to serve tens of millions of people. It would have far extended the Hyde Amendment's already shameful restrictions on abortion funding. It would have betrayed the promise that no one would lose health care coverage they currently have due to reform. And, in all likelihood, this prohibition on abortion coverage would have spread industry-wide in little time.
That's why NOW is thanking all of our activists for the many messages they sent and calls they made to their senators. Our early and strong call to reject any health care legislation containing Stupak-Pitts language made its mark. Our virtual and physical presence on Capitol Hill helped send the message that health care reform should not be negotiated on the backs of women. We thank the 54 senators who listened to our concerns and considered women's health and well-being as they voted.
The bad news is that the similar Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which the House did pass last month, is still in place. When the two versions of the bill are reconciled and merged into one, abortion opponents will no doubt demand that the Stupak language be maintained in order to win their votes on the bill. We cannot let this happen.
Make no mistake, the efforts of the radical right are to outlaw all abortion. They will use whatever method is convenient, and right now that happens to be health care reform. They want women's rights supporters to compromise, but they won't budge an inch. Well, in case they haven't noticed, we're done compromising. NOW urges legislators to oppose the entire bill unless the Stupak-Pitts provisions are removed in conference. Women's lives are at risk, and our rights are not for sale.
###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906
From the National Abortion Federation:
Dear supporter,
Thank you for taking action during the past several weeks by writing letters to the editor and urging your Senators to vote against the Nelson-Hatch Amendment. We defeated this restrictive amendment in the Senate today.
Last week, NAF brought a group of patients to Capitol Hill to share their abortion experiences with legislators. Each of these women had a different experience with insurance coverage for their abortion care, and they represent the women who could be affected by restrictions like the Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch amendments.
Today, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) cited some of our patient's stories during debate on the Senate floor. NAF member and author, Professor Carole Joffe joined us last week in DC and spoke with some of the patients we brought forward. This week, she blogged about her experience:
"The day was full of fiery speeches by legislators and advocates...however, the most moving and significant part of the day was my conversation with three women who had later abortions. They were introduced to me by staff from the National Abortion Federation. All three women--Dana, Christie, and Mary--had experienced much wanted pregnancies that took nightmarish turns. Read more
Even though we were victorious in the Senate today, the fight is not over; we must continue to work to stop additional attacks in the Senate and ensure that the final health reform bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts language that’s currently in the House bill. Support NAF's work to bring the voices of patients forward to ensure health care reform does not further restrict women's access to abortion care.
From the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:
Great news — minutes ago, the Senate voted on the anti-choice Nelson/Hatch amendment to health care reform, and we won! Unlike the Stupak amendment that passed the House of Representatives, this amendment did not pass the Senate!
This is a huge victory — and your e-mails and phone calls helped make it happen. Thank you. While we still have a long way toward health care reform that ensures quality, affordable health care — including reproductive health care — for all, defeating the Nelson/Hatch amendment today was a big step forward.
As you likely know, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch were behind the anti-choice amendment, and the language was virtually identical to the Stupak amendment. As we saw during the vote in the House of Representatives, anti-choice groups were lobbying hard to pass it. But, the Senate agreed with us this time: eliminating choice for millions of women with private health insurance is a price we can't afford to pay for passing health reform.
We still have a long way to go. I'm certain that there will be significant hurdles ahead, and I'm glad to know, as always, that we can count on your help. Just for today, though, please know that we did something great together. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:
Breaking News!
An Important Victory
The Senate voted on Dec. 8 to table - and therefore defeat - the onerous Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This amendment, which mirrored the Stupak-Pitts language approved by the House of Representatives, would have expanded abortion restrictions and trampled on the rights of those who believe that abortion is a moral option.
The work of religious advocates was key to this success. We will keep working with our congressional allies and sister organizations to ensure that health care reform is finally approved and that it protects against further assaults on women's reproductive rights.
---
Feel free to link to other statements below. I'm feeling unified and fired up!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Quick statement on the failure of the Nelson-Hatch amendment
The Senate voted today to reject the anti-choice Nelson-Hatch amendment, a clear attempt to limit access to comprehensive reproductive health care.
The Nelson-Hatch amendment was the Senate's version of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, passed in the House of Representitives earlier this month.
CPC Watch applauds the work of the groups and individuals who came out last week to lobby, really, demonstrate, and otherwise work to protect women's health. Also, a heartfelt thanks to those Senators who voted to table the amendment.
We've protected the little ground we already had, now let's reclaim what we've lost! They're our organs, after all.
-The Organizers
The Nelson-Hatch amendment was the Senate's version of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, passed in the House of Representitives earlier this month.
CPC Watch applauds the work of the groups and individuals who came out last week to lobby, really, demonstrate, and otherwise work to protect women's health. Also, a heartfelt thanks to those Senators who voted to table the amendment.
We've protected the little ground we already had, now let's reclaim what we've lost! They're our organs, after all.
-The Organizers
Friday, November 13, 2009
Stupak Explained
Some folks have contacted us wondering exactly what Stupak-Pitts means, since without the amendment Hyde wouldn't have been violated. The National Organization for Women outlined the amendment on this form to contact your Senators:
The Stupak-Pitts amendment explained:
- The ban on abortion coverage in insurance would apply to both the proposed public option and to private health insurance plans sold in the new regional health insurance exchanges. It is estimated that some 36 million uninsured persons would be purchasing insurance policies through new exchanges and would be eligible for federal affordability subsidies.
- Health insurers may not sell plans that cover abortion to customers who are paying without a subsidy, if even just one person who is receiving the federal affordability credits (the subsidy) were to purchase a plan. In other words, even if you are paying 100 percent of your insurance costs, abortion coverage would not be available in your plan if anyone with affordability credits joins the same plan.
- Women may purchase a separate abortion "rider" for coverage, though many doubt that these riders would be offered by the insurance companies.
- Small companies (fewer than 100 employees) would also likely purchase health insurance through the exchange, but if any of their employees received affordability credits no abortion coverage could be included.
- Eighty-seven percent of employer-based insurance plans now cover abortion services, but if employers withdraw coverage and send their employees to the health insurance exchanges, those employees would likely lose abortion coverage under these new prohibitions.
There may be a modified version of this harmful amendment that is included in the Senate health care reform bill that will be debated next week. We want to make sure that Stupak-Pitts language is not used and that no variation of this harmful amendment is passed. Please send a message to your senators that you oppose any restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion.
How to respond to pro-Stupak arguments
The following is a cross-post with ChoiceUSA.
------------
"Why should the health care plan cover abortion if the procedure is elective?"
This is a question all choice advocates need to be prepared to address, and one I myself have gotten many times since the passage of the Stupak Amendment last weekend. Unfortunately, like many choice-related debates, there isn't a quick and simple answer readily available.
To even begin to address the issue we must first acknowledge that abortion is a part of reproductive health care. Like an IUD insertion or an annual PAP test, pregnancy termination must be included in any health care plan in order for women to be able to exercise control over their reproductive organs as they choose. If we deny the fact that abortion care is health care, we've already lost the battle.
From there we need to be ready to address the issue of an "elective" procedure as opposed to a "medically-indicated" procedure. It is in this discrepancy that antichoice factions have been allowed to gain headway with those who would normally be sympathetic to our concerns. Likening abortion to a sort of cosmetic surgery, refrains of "Why Should We Have To Pay for Something You Don't Really 'Need'" fall on reasonable ears. However, if we look to other facets of reproductive health care, or health care in general, we see that there are numerous cases where so-called "elective" procedures remain covered under any proposed health plan:
Another argument against our fight for comprehensive reproductive health care comes from folks who are generally sympathetic but believe we're kicking up too much dust over a relatively inexpensive procedure when there are people who need thousands of dollars in health coverage now. I do not wish to navigate into the murky waters of "he started it," but it was not "our side" that initially kicked up all that dust. The initial health bill proposal allowed for private insurance companies that would be receiving federal subsidy to continue covering abortion as their policies indicate; it was not until Rep. Stupak embarked on a mission to "compromise with" (read: capitulate to) antichoice congress members that we had any reason to complain whatsoever. In the initial health bill, shot down by Congress last Summer, representatives chose to delay providing much-needed health coverage to thousands, in part because of the abortion coverage private insurers would be able to continue providing.
Besides, if Congress was really out to save money and not impose an antichoice agenda over our health care options, things like abortion and contraception would be a priority. The average cost of "elective" abortion in this country remains in the $450 range, though due to financial assistance and low-cost clinic care the average amount paid tends to be in the $300s. Women can access hormonal contraception starting at $15 a month, and implantation methods average around several hundred dollars for 12 years of pregnancy prevention. Due to restrictions on public funds going towards any of these procedures and the lack of private insurance coverage of most, many women are forced to pay out of pocket for pregnancy prevention and termination. However, women in the United States can receive hospital-based maternity care from Medicaid: hospital births average around $7000 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery and between $12,000 and $16,000 for cesarean births. The government pays millions a year for pregnancy and birth costs, not to mention the subsequent costs from WIC programs and pediatric care, yet provides no funding for women who wish to avoid pregnancy or terminate an existing pregnancy. It is in these statistics that the true agenda of antichoice government agencies shines through: they would rather pay thousands for a woman to carry to term than address the moral quandary that is abortion care.
The real restrictions on abortion and contraception coverage remain inextricably attached to moral, not reasonable, qualms about what should be covered when. There are many conditions that are technically "elective" that remain covered by private insurance and government programs alike, and yet antichoice legislation continues to buck cost-saving reproductive health care to bend to an overlying agenda of control over women's bodies. The health care debate cannot continue without comprehensive health care being taken into account, no option left behind.
------------
"Why should the health care plan cover abortion if the procedure is elective?"
This is a question all choice advocates need to be prepared to address, and one I myself have gotten many times since the passage of the Stupak Amendment last weekend. Unfortunately, like many choice-related debates, there isn't a quick and simple answer readily available.
To even begin to address the issue we must first acknowledge that abortion is a part of reproductive health care. Like an IUD insertion or an annual PAP test, pregnancy termination must be included in any health care plan in order for women to be able to exercise control over their reproductive organs as they choose. If we deny the fact that abortion care is health care, we've already lost the battle.
From there we need to be ready to address the issue of an "elective" procedure as opposed to a "medically-indicated" procedure. It is in this discrepancy that antichoice factions have been allowed to gain headway with those who would normally be sympathetic to our concerns. Likening abortion to a sort of cosmetic surgery, refrains of "Why Should We Have To Pay for Something You Don't Really 'Need'" fall on reasonable ears. However, if we look to other facets of reproductive health care, or health care in general, we see that there are numerous cases where so-called "elective" procedures remain covered under any proposed health plan:
- A woman has a small, benign ovarian cyst. There is no "medically-indicated" reason to get the cyst removed, but monthly ovulation is uncomfortable and she wants to undergo surgery to prevent further discomfort. Very few would argue that this woman's surgery should not be covered even though it would technically be an "elective" procedure, and to be sure, labor contractions are far more uncomfortable than the pain of ovulating with an ovarian cyst.
- A 35 year old woman has some history of breast cancer in her family and chooses to begin having yearly mammograms even though medical research doesn't indicate the need for this procedure until age 40. This woman's screening procedure would be fully "elective," and yet no one is proposing amendments to restrict early preventative care to detect abnormal growths in her breasts.
- Even procedures generally labeled as "cosmetic" are covered under many health plans and have not been attacked by legislative restrictions. Many private insurance companies offer coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy (which basically amounts to breast implants), a truly elective, non-medically indicated, very cosmetic surgery. No one is kicking up dust about breast cancer survivors obtaining new breasts on a federally-subsidized plan, nor should they.
Another argument against our fight for comprehensive reproductive health care comes from folks who are generally sympathetic but believe we're kicking up too much dust over a relatively inexpensive procedure when there are people who need thousands of dollars in health coverage now. I do not wish to navigate into the murky waters of "he started it," but it was not "our side" that initially kicked up all that dust. The initial health bill proposal allowed for private insurance companies that would be receiving federal subsidy to continue covering abortion as their policies indicate; it was not until Rep. Stupak embarked on a mission to "compromise with" (read: capitulate to) antichoice congress members that we had any reason to complain whatsoever. In the initial health bill, shot down by Congress last Summer, representatives chose to delay providing much-needed health coverage to thousands, in part because of the abortion coverage private insurers would be able to continue providing.
Besides, if Congress was really out to save money and not impose an antichoice agenda over our health care options, things like abortion and contraception would be a priority. The average cost of "elective" abortion in this country remains in the $450 range, though due to financial assistance and low-cost clinic care the average amount paid tends to be in the $300s. Women can access hormonal contraception starting at $15 a month, and implantation methods average around several hundred dollars for 12 years of pregnancy prevention. Due to restrictions on public funds going towards any of these procedures and the lack of private insurance coverage of most, many women are forced to pay out of pocket for pregnancy prevention and termination. However, women in the United States can receive hospital-based maternity care from Medicaid: hospital births average around $7000 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery and between $12,000 and $16,000 for cesarean births. The government pays millions a year for pregnancy and birth costs, not to mention the subsequent costs from WIC programs and pediatric care, yet provides no funding for women who wish to avoid pregnancy or terminate an existing pregnancy. It is in these statistics that the true agenda of antichoice government agencies shines through: they would rather pay thousands for a woman to carry to term than address the moral quandary that is abortion care.
The real restrictions on abortion and contraception coverage remain inextricably attached to moral, not reasonable, qualms about what should be covered when. There are many conditions that are technically "elective" that remain covered by private insurance and government programs alike, and yet antichoice legislation continues to buck cost-saving reproductive health care to bend to an overlying agenda of control over women's bodies. The health care debate cannot continue without comprehensive health care being taken into account, no option left behind.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Stupak, pregnancy, and insurance coverage
We were sent this today:
When I was in labor with my son, I was given limited options. My doctor required me to be lying flat on my back for delivery, and I was basically confined to the bed during labor. I was eventually taken to the OR for a cesarean which I agreed to after being told I "needed" one.
Fast forward a month or so. I'm a new mom, single, young, broke, and getting by with nothing more than the committed care of my mother. I had fantastic health insurance, however, and was able to have what I came to call "mac daddy pre-natal care." That didn't stop my insurance company from denying coverage for the cesarean I "needed" to have.
What happened was, after laboring for about 6 hours, my obstetrician told me I needed to deliver soon. I was scared for my son's life, exhausted, and fuzzyheaded from the epidural. So I said okay. Turns out the c-section had been noted as "elective" in my charts. When I called the doctor she told me it had to be noted that way since there was no medical emergency or even medically-indicated reason to cut me open! Shocked, exhausted, and still recovering from the c-section that I'd endured over a month prior, I ended up paying for half the surgery out-of-pocket.
People assume reproductive rights activists are all about abortion access. While we do work for abortion rights and abortion access, we do it under an umbrella of protecting reproductive health care in all its facets. Just as we connect pregnancy and birth rights with abortion rights, attacks on abortion rights and abortion access will almost always affect those who want to be pregnant and have a say in the way they choose to birth.
Will the Stupak Amendment Affect Insurance Coverage for Miscarriages? I Think So
No surprises here, right? For sure it is another example of how anti-choice amendments such as the "personhood amendment" can impact all pregnant women, even those who are not seeking an abortion.When I was in labor with my son, I was given limited options. My doctor required me to be lying flat on my back for delivery, and I was basically confined to the bed during labor. I was eventually taken to the OR for a cesarean which I agreed to after being told I "needed" one.
Fast forward a month or so. I'm a new mom, single, young, broke, and getting by with nothing more than the committed care of my mother. I had fantastic health insurance, however, and was able to have what I came to call "mac daddy pre-natal care." That didn't stop my insurance company from denying coverage for the cesarean I "needed" to have.
What happened was, after laboring for about 6 hours, my obstetrician told me I needed to deliver soon. I was scared for my son's life, exhausted, and fuzzyheaded from the epidural. So I said okay. Turns out the c-section had been noted as "elective" in my charts. When I called the doctor she told me it had to be noted that way since there was no medical emergency or even medically-indicated reason to cut me open! Shocked, exhausted, and still recovering from the c-section that I'd endured over a month prior, I ended up paying for half the surgery out-of-pocket.
People assume reproductive rights activists are all about abortion access. While we do work for abortion rights and abortion access, we do it under an umbrella of protecting reproductive health care in all its facets. Just as we connect pregnancy and birth rights with abortion rights, attacks on abortion rights and abortion access will almost always affect those who want to be pregnant and have a say in the way they choose to birth.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Statement Regarding Last Night's Vote
Dear Friends and Supporters,
Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HCA), a bill designed to make health care more affordable and accessible by placing stricter codes on insurance companies. The bill, passed in a narrow 220-215 vote, disallows insurance providers from denying coverage due to "preexisting conditions" or charging higher premiums based on gender.
The bill did, however, pass with the Stupak Amendment in tact. This amendment bars private insurance companies receiving federal subsidy from covering abortion procedures (even if the insurer previously covered it). Patrons of the insurance companies have no say in whether or not their insurer becomes federally subsidized, but it is the patrons who will be left to front the bill from a federally-mandated lack of coverage. Women covered by these insurance providers have the option to purchase an "abortion plan" in addition to their basic health coverage. Touted by some to be a "compromise" with antichoice factions of the legislature, the passage of the Stupak amendment has already garnered a wealth of criticism from women's groups and medical organizations alike.
As a reproductive justice advocacy resource, CPC Watch as an entity applauds any effort to make health care more affordable. While we generally lean to the "left" of social debates, we are non-partisan and strive to keep partisan sectarianism far from our ranks. However, we simply cannot hail last night's vote as a victory in women's health. Any effort to increase the affordability of basic health care cannot, in our opinion, leave certain facets of health care in the dust. We believe that abortion, a procedure that 1 in 3 women will require in her reproductive life, is no less a vital medical service than any other reproductive health procedure. The idea that a woman will actually plan on needing an abortion and go ahead and purchase additional coverage is laughable at best; our work advocating for women's health has told time and time again that women never plan on needing an abortion, and it is ridiculous to expect them to.
Imagine your insurance provider was restricted from covering open heart surgery for some vague reason regarding public morality. You could obtain coverage that was affordable and encouraged you to receive regular preventative care and cardiovascular exams, but in the even you needed bypass surgery you would not be covered. For those concerned with paying for heart surgery out of pocket, the provider offered a "heart surgery plan" for an additional cost. Being a generally healthy human being, maybe young and active with a decent enough diet, my guess is you wouldn't bat an eye at this extra expense; open heart surgery is something very few people expect to need, and yet many require such a procedure, even if they have taken necessary precautions to avoid it. Obviously there is no "moral dilemma" surrounding open heart surgery, so this scenario seems ridiculous. But for those of us who believe abortion qualifies as basic health care as much as heart surgery, the passage of the Stupak amendment is insulting.
Given the percentage of women who will have an abortion before age 45, we have to ask if Representative Stupak's expectation for women to pay more for "abortion coverage" is even legal given the bill's restriction against higher premiums based on sex and gender. After all, an additional "abortion plan" is hardly something a man would or could buy for himself, and while comprehensive men's health is 100% covered by the HCA, a portion of coverage for basic women's health care requires additional payments.
The question that remains is, should we laud the passage of what is indeed a step in the right direction for the majority of the country's health care needs, or should we reject this bill outright due to its sweeping cut of basic women's health coverage? Do we hope for better in the Senate, or are we supposed to get used to these capitulations disguised as bi-partisan compromises?
Whatever happens, we can assure our supporters that we will continue to spread the truth about women's reproductive health and pregnancy options, and will continue to fight for our overlying mission to ensure full, unbridled reproductive justice for each and every woman and girl.
In Solidarity Always,
Lauren Guy-McAlpin
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
Project Coordinator
----------------
Additional Commentary
In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out -- Huffington Post
The Answer to Stupak? Overturn Hyde Now. -- RH Reality Check
Whose health care victory? -- Feministing
Take Action Against Stupak-Pitts
via Planned Parenthood Action Fund
via NARAL Pro-Choice America
Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HCA), a bill designed to make health care more affordable and accessible by placing stricter codes on insurance companies. The bill, passed in a narrow 220-215 vote, disallows insurance providers from denying coverage due to "preexisting conditions" or charging higher premiums based on gender.
The bill did, however, pass with the Stupak Amendment in tact. This amendment bars private insurance companies receiving federal subsidy from covering abortion procedures (even if the insurer previously covered it). Patrons of the insurance companies have no say in whether or not their insurer becomes federally subsidized, but it is the patrons who will be left to front the bill from a federally-mandated lack of coverage. Women covered by these insurance providers have the option to purchase an "abortion plan" in addition to their basic health coverage. Touted by some to be a "compromise" with antichoice factions of the legislature, the passage of the Stupak amendment has already garnered a wealth of criticism from women's groups and medical organizations alike.
As a reproductive justice advocacy resource, CPC Watch as an entity applauds any effort to make health care more affordable. While we generally lean to the "left" of social debates, we are non-partisan and strive to keep partisan sectarianism far from our ranks. However, we simply cannot hail last night's vote as a victory in women's health. Any effort to increase the affordability of basic health care cannot, in our opinion, leave certain facets of health care in the dust. We believe that abortion, a procedure that 1 in 3 women will require in her reproductive life, is no less a vital medical service than any other reproductive health procedure. The idea that a woman will actually plan on needing an abortion and go ahead and purchase additional coverage is laughable at best; our work advocating for women's health has told time and time again that women never plan on needing an abortion, and it is ridiculous to expect them to.
Imagine your insurance provider was restricted from covering open heart surgery for some vague reason regarding public morality. You could obtain coverage that was affordable and encouraged you to receive regular preventative care and cardiovascular exams, but in the even you needed bypass surgery you would not be covered. For those concerned with paying for heart surgery out of pocket, the provider offered a "heart surgery plan" for an additional cost. Being a generally healthy human being, maybe young and active with a decent enough diet, my guess is you wouldn't bat an eye at this extra expense; open heart surgery is something very few people expect to need, and yet many require such a procedure, even if they have taken necessary precautions to avoid it. Obviously there is no "moral dilemma" surrounding open heart surgery, so this scenario seems ridiculous. But for those of us who believe abortion qualifies as basic health care as much as heart surgery, the passage of the Stupak amendment is insulting.
Given the percentage of women who will have an abortion before age 45, we have to ask if Representative Stupak's expectation for women to pay more for "abortion coverage" is even legal given the bill's restriction against higher premiums based on sex and gender. After all, an additional "abortion plan" is hardly something a man would or could buy for himself, and while comprehensive men's health is 100% covered by the HCA, a portion of coverage for basic women's health care requires additional payments.
The question that remains is, should we laud the passage of what is indeed a step in the right direction for the majority of the country's health care needs, or should we reject this bill outright due to its sweeping cut of basic women's health coverage? Do we hope for better in the Senate, or are we supposed to get used to these capitulations disguised as bi-partisan compromises?
Whatever happens, we can assure our supporters that we will continue to spread the truth about women's reproductive health and pregnancy options, and will continue to fight for our overlying mission to ensure full, unbridled reproductive justice for each and every woman and girl.
In Solidarity Always,
Lauren Guy-McAlpin
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
Project Coordinator
----------------
Additional Commentary
In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out -- Huffington Post
The Answer to Stupak? Overturn Hyde Now. -- RH Reality Check
Whose health care victory? -- Feministing
Take Action Against Stupak-Pitts
via Planned Parenthood Action Fund
via NARAL Pro-Choice America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
