Pro Choice Either Don't Get Pregnant or Don't be Poor
(c) Dan Wasserman
The care of the nation is too important to let false arguments hold the floor
With this in mind, I tried to find a compromise for dealing with abortion services in health reform legislation that would be consistent with current law, neither expanding nor contracting access. The Energy and Commerce Committee adopted my amendment that would essentially continue the three-decades-old Hyde amendment's ban on federal funding for abortions, except in the case of rape or incest or to protect the life of the woman, while still allowing patients to access those services if paid for with private funds.
My amendment required insurers in the new health exchanges to keep federal funds strictly segregated from privately generated funds that might be used to pay for abortion services. This isn't simply an accounting gimmick, as some detractors have charged. Currently, some recipients of federal funds--like churches and military contractors--are required to segregate that money from other funding sources. For example, Roman Catholic hospitals receive billions of taxpayer dollars every year to help care for the sick. But the church must segregate these funds from its own money for religious activities. Surely, insurance companies can do the same.
My amendment also retained--and even expanded--current "conscience protections" so health professionals with moral objections to providing abortion services wouldn't be required to do so and couldn't be discriminated against for refusing to provide those services.
Furthermore, my amendment guaranteed that the exchanges would carry at least one plan that did not cover abortion as well as one that did so consumers would have more of a choice than they currently do (nearly 90 percent of plans cover abortion today). This provision was added at the request of pro-life members and groups concerned that individuals who soon would be required to carry health insurance should be able to buy a policy that doesn't cover abortion. Ironically, it is those very same groups that have attacked this provision.
My amendment was supported by both pro-life and pro-choice members of the Energy and Commerce Committee because it was consistent with existing law and formed through concessions from both sides of this issue. Trust me, nobody in the pro-choice community is happy about singling out a legal medical procedure for restrictions, but we understood the need to make concessions in order to achieve the larger goal of passing meaningful health reform. Fortunately, the bill now before the
Unfortunately, the Stupak-Pitts amendment that replaced my amendment during House floor consideration goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim. It would result in a major step backward for women's control over their reproductive lives. First and foremost, it essentially stops insurance plans in the health exchanges from providing abortion coverage. It does this by banning anyone receiving any federal assistance, roughly 80 percent of people in the exchange, from purchasing a plan that provides abortion services. This restriction applies no matter how little federal assistance a consumer gets or how strictly the insurance company keeps federal funds separate from private funds.
And although Stupak amendment supporters claim that individuals not receiving federal assistance would have access to plans that cover abortion services, insurance companies would have to offer two nearly identical plans--one that does not cover abortion and one that does. But according to insurance industry consultants like
Stupak amendment proponents also argue that women could purchase an insurance "rider" covering abortion. But based on precedence, that is highly unlikely. In
Stupak amendment proponents have made other claims that don't hold water, such as the mythical monthly "abortion fee" levied on everyone in the exchange, but independent observers like Politifact.com correctly labeled this "False." We need to strike a balance on this issue so health reform isn't a casualty of divisive abortion politics. That's what my amendment did, and that's what the
Available at Amazon.com:
- Government-Run Healthcare Debate
- Harry Reid Wrong on History and Wrong on Health Reform
- Democrats Cave on Health Care Reform
- Health Reform Amendment Upholds Current Abortion Funding Law
- There's No Place Like Home: Elderly Qualify for Wide Range of Services
- The 'Reform' That Ate America
- Congress Needs to Improve Quality of Healthcare
- Your Future Health Plan: When health reform dust settles few Americans will be unaffected
- Medicare Advantage Trims Could Affect Millions of Seniors
- Congress Fights Obesity With Healthcare Bills
- Why Americans Should Not Fear Scientific Progress
- Is a 'Cash Only' or 'Direct Pay' Doctor Right for You
- Healthcare Reform and Patient Choice
Healthcare Industry jobs
Find your next job in the Healthcare Industry. Search Healthcare jobs from thousands of job and career search sites.
Healthcare - Health Reform Is No Place for an Abortion Fight
(c) 2009 U.S. News & World Report