Abortion-Rights Advocates, Opponents Seek 'Truce' On Issue In Health Reform, NYT Reports

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 15 Sep 2009 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

A few groups on either side of the abortion-rights debate are calling for a "limited truce" by agreeing to "abortion neutral" health care reform legislation, the New York Times reports. The Times reports that the groups have agreed to refrain from using health reform as a way to advance their agendas and to maintain the legal status quo regarding federal funding of abortion services. Current restrictions ban the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest or physical threat to the woman's life. Similar restrictions apply to other federal insurance programs. Although neither side is abandoning its fundamental beliefs or long-term goals, "at least some influential players on both sides value health care overhaul enough that all they want is that it not change the abortion status quo," according to the Times. However, the groups are having trouble agreeing on the meaning of status quo and "abortion neutral."

Antiabortion-rights advocates contend that maintaining existing restrictions would be a neutral solution to the issue. Antiabortion-rights groups also want the restrictions to be explicitly defined in health reform legislation, not left to interpretation by the courts or presidential appointees.

Abortion-rights advocates argue that millions of women already receive coverage for abortion services under private plans, most of which are provided by employers. They note that women could lose coverage they already receive if they qualify for subsidized insurance plans or the public insurance plan option. The advocates say that this would go against President Obama's pledge that people would be able to keep their current health coverage if they are satisfied with it.

An amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's version of the House health reform bill (HR 3200) attempts to reconcile these differences. The Capps amendment would allow private plans to continue to cover abortion services --- as they do now -- and require that there be at least one private plan that covers abortion services and at least one that does not in the health insurance exchange. The amendment also would require that government contributions to either the private or public plans be segregated from premiums paid by individuals and that payment for abortion services beyond existing restrictions come out of that premium pool. The amendment would allow a public plan to cover abortion services beyond the current restrictions of rape, incest and threat to the woman's life, with the same requirement that federal dollars could not cover abortion services but allowing private premium dollars to used to cover abortion services. Abortion-rights groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America say that the separation of funds would ensure that abortion services were paid for with private funds and not federal money. However, abortion-rights opponents claim the Capps amendment is "bookkeeping legerdemain," the Times reports.

Another proposal to make coverage of abortion services available without directly using federal funding includes riders to allow consumers to buy supplemental abortion coverage (Steinfels, New York Times, 9/12).

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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations