Blogs Comment On Abortion Coverage, Women's Health Issues In Health Reform

email to a friend

printer friendly

opinions

Current Article Ratings:

Patient / Public:
Healthcare Prof:

• "Some U.S. Health Insurers Deny Coverage to Abuse Victims, White House Notes," Patricia Zengerle, Reuters' "Front Row Washington": During a webchat advocating health reform legislation, White House domestic policy adviser Valerie Jarrett said that it is legal in some states for insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence, Zengerle writes. Jarrett urged the chat's participants to get involved in health reform efforts, saying, "We need your engagement, we need your involvement. ... It is extremely important that we have this passed and on the president's desk this year." According to the National Women's Law Center, eight states -- Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming -- and the District of Columbia allow insurers to include domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. "Denial of coverage to people who are sick, or have been sick ... is one of the many emotional issues in the health care debate, and health insurance companies have been a favorite target for many advocates of reform," Zengerle writes (Zengerle, "Front Row Washington," Reuters, 11/2).


• "House Health Care Bill Rewards Activism on Women's Issues," Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's "On Women": The House health care reform bill (HR 3962) unveiled last week "contains several sections that pertain just to women in terms of abortion coverage, pregnancy services and prohibitions against excluding those with pre-existing conditions, specifically mentioning women who've been victims of domestic violence," Kotz writes. Although "the bill does provide maternity coverage as part of a basic benefits package that insurers must provide in their coverage, it specifically says that public funding can't be used for abortions -- which would include coverage under the public option -- except where it's already allowed, such as in cases of rape or incest or where a mother's life is at risk," she continues. Kotz notes that "men aren't being ignored" in the legislation as "they're getting their issues addressed, albeit in a quieter way." In separate meetings recently with Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards -- "who is lobbying hard for increased reproductive health services" -- and former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann -- who is trying to increase the prevalence of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men -- Kotz found that "women have been more successful at lobbying for their health needs." She writes that Richards has "ticked off an impressive list of Planned Parenthood's health reform lobbying efforts," which included 150 published opinion-editorials in newspapers, 50,000 letters and e-mails to members of Congress, and meetings with officials at the White House and in Congress. Kotz writes that Richards is "pleased to see the attention being paid so far to women's health issues in health reform and adds that keeping abortion access at the status quo is an acceptable compromise," though she is also "keeping her eye on" on Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) "and other members of Congress who are pushing to add amendments that ban federally funded insurance companies from offering abortion coverage, even if they set aside private funds for the coverage." However, Kotz writes that what Planned Parenthood also is "really worried about now" is "a nursing shortage if health reform passes," according to Richards. "Sure enough," the House bill "details coverage for nurses, specifically discussing optional coverage for at-home nursing services for pregnant and postnatal women and for free-standing birth centers, which are usually staffed by certified nurse-midwives," Kotz writes. "But also tucked away in the 1,990-page document are two paragraphs calling for barriers to be lifted when it comes to Medicare beneficiaries accessing screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. I'm guessing Theismann will be pleased about that," she concludes (Kotz, "On Women," U.S. News & World Report, 10/30).
  
  
• "Abortion Foes Send Congress Stark Warning," Patrick O'Connor, Politico's "Live Pulse": In a statement issued on Monday, the National Right to Life Committee said lawmakers "will be defined" by how they vote on a rule to allow the House health reform bill (HR 3962) to proceed to the floor for a vote. NRLC called the vote "the most important House roll call on direct funding of abortion demand" in more than 10 years, O'Connor writes. The NRLC statement "ratchets up pressure on antiabortion Democrats, as well as party leaders who are working to broker a compromise between abortion opponents and those lawmakers who worry bigger changes could make it harder for women to pay for the procedure," O'Connor says (O'Connor, "Live Pulse," Politico, 11/2).
  
  
• "Whose Right to Sex Education?" Philip Cohen, Huffington Post blogs: Laws in 37 states and the District of Columbia allowing parents to "'opt' their children out of what little sex education is still offered" do a disservice to those children who miss out on lessons about sexually transmitted infections and birth control, Cohen writes. Opt-out provisions "are intended to permit parents to raise their children according to a particular moral code, and their children's free access to lifesaving knowledge is a secondary concern," Cohen says. He writes, "In the last 15 years, the public provision of real sex education has been drastically curtailed in this country" due to "the political movement for 'abstinence only' education." But abstinence only education "has been shown to have no effect on how much teenagers have sex," their number of sexual partners, or the rates of teenage birth control use, pregnancy or STIs, according to Cohen. While there has been some "progress toward broadening sex education" in the last year, "including federal efforts to break the political stranglehold of the abstinence-only movement," opt-out provisions remain prevalent, he continues, concluding,"[S]houldn't children have rights to real education that are not alienable?" (Cohen, Huffington Post blogs, 11/3).


• "What's the Truth About Abortion and 'Unresolved Issues' in House Health Reform Legislation?" Amie Newman, RH Reality Check: Newman asks, "Is anyone else as confused and irritated as I am about the obfuscation of the facts regarding abortion care coverage?" She notes that a recent article from CQ Politics says Democrats in the House are debating abortion funding in the chamber's reform bill (HR 3962), with antiabortion rights proponents demanding that the bill "explicitly ban abortion funding." Although the issue is being reported on and discussed as if it's a question of whether or not to extend the current ban on federal funds for abortion services (as is [laid] out in the 40 year old Hyde Amendment) to any health care reform efforts currently underway, the truth is (as it usually is) much different," Newman writes. She explains the Hyde Amendment -- which "is not going anywhere under health care reform" -- stipulates that "government subsidy programs like Medicaid cannot cover the cost of a woman's abortion though, of course, each state is free to pass their own laws governing how state taxpayer money can or cannot be used." Although nothing in health reform legislation would "mandate federal funding for abortion coverage," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and his supporters "want assurances" and are pushing for an amendment "[b]anning abortion coverage in private insurance as well," Newman says. She adds, "Clearly, anti-choice legislators are using this as another opportunity to impose their political agenda upon a piece of legislation with little regard for women's health and lives" (Newman, RH Reality Check, 10/30).

• Additional
• References
• Citations