Blogs Comment On State Abortion Laws, 'Personhood' Initiatives, Health Reform, Other Topics

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology;  Health Insurance / Medical Insurance;  Pregnancy / Obstetrics
Article Date: 10 Aug 2009 - 1:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Politics Distorts Facts on Impact of Abortion Coverage," Susan Cohen, RH Reality Check: In a blog entry previewing a Guttmacher Policy Review article that will be available in late August, Cohen -- the director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute -- writes about how facts from a series of comprehensive literature reviews conducted by Guttmacher in 2009 have been distorted in recent political debates. One review found that state laws involving parental consent or mandated waiting periods and counseling "may delay abortion ... but, by and large, do not have a substantial impact on actually preventing them from occurring." These findings stand in stark contrast to the results from a different review analyzing studies on the impact of the ban on federal Medicaid coverage of abortion. The researchers found that the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services, "does have considerable impact," as 25% of women "who would have an abortion if it were paid for by the government instead continue the pregnancy to term." Abortion-rights opponents use the Guttmacher analysis to argue that a repeal of the Hyde Amendment would increase the number of Medicaid-eligible women receiving abortions by 25%. Cohen writes, "If a ban on public funding denies women access to abortion, it should go without saying that restoring public funding would have the opposite effect. The extent of an increase in abortions if the Hyde amendment were to be repealed, however, may not be so obvious." Cohen writes that if subsidized abortions became available in states in which they are not currently available, it "would translate to only a 5% increase in the total number of abortions because relatively few women in any given state are actually enrolled in Medicaid." She continues, "And because many of the most populous states (such as New York and California) already use their own money to pay for abortion services for poor women, the national impact of repealing Hyde would be even smaller...a figure that would represent an increase in the number of abortions nationwide of only 2.5%." Cohen writes that such an analysis "would be relevant if there were an active debate in Congress about repealing the Hyde Amendment," but "that is not the case." Instead, the "current debate is around health care reform, specifically over the question of whether health insurance plans will continue to be able to cover abortion services," something abortion-rights opponents are against, Cohen writes. The "availability of coverage ... cannot be expected to increase the overall numbers of abortions more than nominally -- if at all," Cohen writes (Cohen, RH Reality Check, 8/5).

~ "Memo to ALL: 'Personhood' Measures Really Will Hurt ALL Pregnant Women," Lynn Paltrow, RH Reality Check: So-called "personhood" bills currently under consideration in several states "would grant the 'unborn,' from the moment of fertilization, full personhood status under state constitutional law," Paltrow -- executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women -- writes. She continues that "[s]uch measures would not only be used as a basis for ending the right to choose an abortion, they would also provide a basis for depriving pregnant women going to term of their rights to liberty, bodily integrity, medical decision-making and even life." In an NAPW video advocating against personhood measures, the group offers four "examples of cases in which fetal rights arguments ... were used to hurt pregnant women who had no intention of ending their pregnancies," Paltrow writes, noting that all four women were either forced to undergo caesarean sections or ordered by the courts to do so, though two of the women refused the court orders. While "current law does not in fact permit courts or prosecutors to substitute their judgment for that of pregnant women," personhood measures "would change that" by allowing courts "to appoint lawyers for the unborn, to force pregnant women and their families to participate in emergency court hearings, and then to decide for them what is best for the baby," Paltrow writes. NAPW "appreciate[s] the opportunity to demonstrate ... why it is that organizations committed to advancing a true culture of life, one that values the women who give that life, would join us in opposing" such measures, Paltrow concludes (Paltrow, RH Reality Check, 8/5).

~ "The Health Care Bubble: The Status Quo Is Unsustainable," Louise Marie Roth, Huffington Post blogs: People who oppose an overhaul of the U.S. health insurance system "don't seem to recognize that health care built on private insurance companies is headed for the same kind of train wreck" that devastated the housing and financial markets during the past year, Roth writes. She continues that "defenders of the status quo seem unable to see the big insurance bubble for what it is: an unsustainable out-of-control behemoth headed for a huge collision." According to Roth, "it is clear that the current system of private health insurance is economically unsustainable" because health care costs are rising at far greater rates than incomes. In addition, she writes that it is equally clear "that retaining the existing health care system in the U.S. will drive the economy into the ground." However, she concludes, "What isn't clear is whether the lobby-funded lawmakers will reform health care in a way that benefits the public and the economy," or whether they "will keep letting big business run this country into the ground" (Roth, Huffington Post blogs, 8/5).

"Stories: I am Dr. Tiller," Cindy Cooper, Words of Choice: Following the shooting death of abortion provider George Tiller, abortion-rights supporters launched a Web site called "I am Dr. Tiller" in order to "show the real lives of people who work in and around abortion clinics," Cooper writes. She explains that the site includes the personal stories of several individuals, who also post pictures of homemade signs that say "I am Dr. Tiller" or something similar. Cooper highlights several stories from the site, including one from an abortion clinic volunteer in Illinois that reads: "I am pro-choice, most simply because I trust in my sisters to make informed decisions about their lives (with the help of sustained education and access to health care and services) that promote their own well-being and the well-being of those they love." Cooper writes, "Each story carries the important message of the good and work in support of reproductive freedom that so many carry on across the country." She concludes, "Their stories deserve to be read -- and shared" (Cooper, Words of Choice, 8/6).

~ "Women Need a Plan B," Kelli Conlin, Huffington Post blogs: The reaction to FDA's approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B has been "[u]nremarkable," Conlin -- president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NARAL Pro-Choice New York -- writes, adding, "Is it possible that Plan B has finally become so commonplace that it no longer warrants debate?" She continues that "while a loud ideological battle" over the pills "roiled the highest levels of government" for more than a decade, "an amazing thing happened simultaneously: the women who needed it quietly began adding it to their medicine cabinets, and for them there was no controversy at all." It is "a wonder that the other side was able to manufacture controversy in the first place," as 98% of sexually active women use oral contraceptives at some point in their lives and EC is "simply a higher dose of the same hormones found in birth control pills," Conlin writes. Still, "more work remains to be done around EC advocacy and awareness," she writes, including investing in an awareness campaign "to underscore the importance and time-sensitivity of this product" and increasing "public funding and coverage for low-income women." It also is "vital that the scientifically unfounded restriction on over-the-counter sales to women under 17 be lifted," especially because the unintended pregnancy rate is "alarmingly high" among teenagers, Conlin writes, adding that it is "foolish to deprive them of ready access to this safe, effective method of birth control" (Conlin, Huffington Post blogs, 8/5).

~ "Religious Groups Say 'Abortion Mandate' Ads Mislead," Lynda Waddington, RH Reality Check: Two religious organizations are urging the Family Research Council and other antiabortion groups to suspend a media campaign that is disseminating "massive misinformation" about abortion provisions in national health care reform proposals, Waddington writes. According to Waddington, the campaign includes a webcast featuring spokespeople from more than 15 antiabortion groups, as well as two Republican Congress members. It also includes a television advertisement titled "After a Government Takeover," which claims that "current health care proposals would deny funding for essential treatments while providing public funding for abortions," Waddington writes. She explains that Carlton Veasey, head of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, both are working to halt this campaign. According to Waddington, Korzen said, "If the Family Research Council was truly committed to human life, it would focus its efforts on ensuring that the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack health insurance can get the care they need." Korzen added that FRC's media blitz "is unhelpful, untruthful and not at all pro-life." Waddington notes that Veasey agreed that the abortion issue "should not be used to manipulate public opinion on health care reform" (Waddington, RH Reality Check, 8/6).

~ "Does Obama's Health Care Plan Fund Abortion? Take 5," Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report's God and Country: A House health care reform package includes an amendment proposed by abortion-rights supporter Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions "because the public option must abide by the same rules as the private plans offered through the proposed health insurance exchange," Gilgoff writes. He continues, "So the debate over whether the government funds abortion through the health care bill is over whether the Capps amendment really uses premiums paid by individuals -- as opposed to federal funds -- to pay for abortion." Gilgoff notes that Douglas Johnson of the antiabortion group National Right to Life Committee called the amendment a "bookkeeping sham" because money from the federal government and other payers would all go into the same fund to pay for health benefits. Gilgoff also explains that if Congress does not reauthorize the Hyde Amendment -- which prevents Medicaid from using federal funds for abortion services in most cases -- then the Capps amendment "stipulates that federal funds could finance abortion." However, President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget "left the Hyde Amendment in place," he writes, adding, "Democrats say a fight over the Hyde Amendment, and abortion, should be separate from the debate over a health care bill" (Gilgoff, "God and Country," U.S. News & World Report, 8/5).

Antiabortion-Rights Blog

~ "Pro-Life Organizations Announce National Campaign To Stop Taxpayer-Funded Abortions in Obamacare," ProLifeBlogs: The Christian Defense Coalition on Sept. 12 will begin a campaign -- "Abortion Is Not Health Care" -- to oppose coverage for abortion services in health care reform legislation currently in Congress, according to a blog entry. The campaign will include "public prayer vigils, rallies, lobbying, demonstrations and cutting-edge pro-life witness on Capitol Hill," the blog says. The campaign will "focus on fighting to ensure" that federal funding is not available for abortion services, that so-called provider "conscience" clauses remain in effect, that federal mandates requiring health plans to cover abortion services are not included in reform bills and that state laws restricting access to abortion remain valid, the blog entry says. In addition, the campaign aims to ensure that Planned Parenthood "never becomes an 'essential community health provider,'" it adds. According to the blog entry, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, coalition director, said that the "most crucial item on the pro-life agenda" is blocking abortion coverage from being included in health care reform legislation. He added that that campaign will be "a public and prophetic witness to ensure that tax dollars are never used to diminish women and trample social justice" (ProLifeBlogs, 8/5).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.