Blogs Comment On Abortion Issues In Health Reform Debate

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance;  Women's Health / Gynecology;  Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 11 Nov 2009 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

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

• "Who Subsidizes Abortion," Eyal Press, The Nation's "The Notion": Press writes that even "if the social consequences" of the antiabortion amendment by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) are "clear, the logic is not." According to Press, "Supporters of the provision evidently want to assure taxpayers that they will not be forced to subsidize abortion in any way," adding, "But if they are serious about this, why haven't they drawn up an amendment abolishing tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance?" Press writes, "If the employer-sponsored insurance that a worker gets happens to cover abortion -- which, in roughly half the cases, it does -- then that taxpayer already subsidizes abortion." Press continues, "The purists who don't want any of their dollars to subsidize abortion have another problem" because "plenty of" antiabortion-rights advocates "likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services (in which case their premiums indirectly fund the procedure)" (Press, "The Notion," The Nation, 11/9).
  
  
• "Why the Stupak Amendment Is a Monumental Setback for Abortion Access," Jessica Arons, Huffington Post blogs: Arons, director of Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, writes that the Stupak/Pitts amendment "potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women's access to abortion." She adds that the "claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false." Arons explains four major effects, beyond banning "federal funding for abortions," that would result from the amendment. According to Arons, the amendment "effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans" in a national health insurance exchange, "includes only extremely narrow exceptions," permits "a useless abortion 'rider'" and "allows for discrimination against abortion providers" (Arons, Huffington Post blogs, 11/9).
  
  
• "Coughing Up Stupak's 'Morning-After' Poison Pill," M.S. Bellows, Huffington Post blogs: "[I]f the White House and congressional Democrats are willing, for a change, to be tough and savvy, they could save both health care reform and abortion rights by using the budget reconciliation process to reinstate the abortion protections Stupak's amendment removed," Bellows writes. Budget reconciliation "isn't subject to filibuster," and only a simple majority in each chamber is required to pass a reconciled bill, he adds. He continues that although reconciliation "can only be used to effect budgetary changes," this is a "plus because it would allow liberals to pass a poison pill of their own: revocation of the Hyde Amendment and full federal funding of all abortions" (Bellows, Huffington Post blogs, 11/10).
  
  
• "Compromiser-in-Chief: No Backstop for Women's Rights," Martha Burk, Huffington Post blogs: President Obama "signaled long ago that he's willing to look the other way on abortion rights" during his commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame in May, according to Burk, co-founder of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy. The speech "was all about 'common ground' on abortion, but if you listened with half an ear you heard that all the concessions he mentioned had to come from the pro-choice side," Burk writes. "Well, the House ... no doubt got the message, because they've 'concessioned' away any hope of reproductive choice for women who need health insurance," Burk continues, adding that Obama "did not draw a line in the sand on women's rights when asked if he could live with it." Instead, he "punted, saying it's a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Burk writes, concluding, "Unfortunately, that's the change we can now believe in" (Burk, Huffington Post blogs, 11/10).
  
  
• "Assault on Women's Reproductive Rights Continues With a Vengeance," Ellen Malcolm, EMILY's List's "Read My Lipstick": Antiabortion-rights lawmakers "were willing to sacrifice health care reform -- even though millions of people would now be able to receive coverage, even though the bill would finally begin to lower health care costs, even though lives would be saved -- to enact antiabortion provisions to take away reproductive rights from millions of women," Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, writes. The Stupak amendment would "deny the millions of women who get covered" access to reproductive health care, including abortion services, coverage that is "available today in private health plans," Malcolm writes. "This outrageous provision must be stricken from the legislation before health care reform becomes law," she adds. Malcolm adds that "it's up to the president and the Congress to make certain that women do not lose their benefits or rights as a result of health care reform" (Malcolm, "Read My Lipstick," EMILY's List, 11/7).
  
  
• "Casey: No New Abortion Restrictions in Bill," Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico's "Live Pulse": Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), "the Democrat most closely identified in the Senate as antiabortion, doesn't believe the health care reform bill should place new restrictions on the procedure," Budoff Brown writes. Casey spokesperson Larry Smar said that Casey "thinks that health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976." Casey "voted for amendments in the [Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee] that would maintain neutrality on abortion," Smar added. According to Budoff Brown, during his time in the Senate, "Casey has tried to avoid making" his opposition to abortion "central to his policy decisions." Smar's statement says that Casey "continues to work with his colleagues in the Senate and with the White House to ensure that the Senate health care reform bill protects existing federal and state conscience protections, existing state abortion laws and contains strong language to prohibit federal funds from being used to fund abortions" (Budoff Brown, "Live Pulse," Politico, 11/9).
  
  
• "Abort Lobby," Timothy Noah, Slate: Noah writes that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Organization for Women are "incensed" that the House "accepted an 11th-hour amendment to its health reform bill (HR 3962) sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and embraced" by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that prohibits private health plans that receive federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage. However, he adds, "Know who isn't miffed? America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents the very companies whose marketing practices would be restricted by the Stupak amendment." Noah continues, "The prospect of greater government regulation of health insurance is not something that AHIP ordinarily tends to overlook," adding, "What gives?" To find the answer, writes Noah, "we must look to politics." He explains, "For all their lofty rhetoric, the insurers don't want to improve the health reform bill. They want to kill it." According to Noah, "The Stupak amendment improved the bill's chances of final passage, but as a general rule Republicans may not cast pro-abortion votes. Recognizing this, insurers held their tongues" (Noah, Slate, 11/9).
  
  
• "Freedom of Choice, Except for Women," Ruth Marcus, Washington Post's "Post Partisan": Marcus writes, "Opponents of the various Democratic health reform proposals talk a lot about how people should be free to purchase whatever kind of insurance they want," adding, "Except, it turns out, if those people are women." Marcus continues that the Stupak amendment would make obtaining health care that includes abortion very difficult and that the offering of separate riders for those who want to obtain insurance coverage for the procedure will not ensure access to the procedure. She explains, "As if people plan ahead to have abortions. As if insurers will go to the trouble -- and risk the controversy -- of providing such riders." She writes, "It wasn't worth torpedoing health reform over this issue, so I understand" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) choice to allow the amendment, concluding, "It's outrageous, though, that she had to make it" (Marcus, "Post Partisan," Washington Post, 11/10).
  
  
• "The Dems' Smart Abortion Move," Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast's "Blogs & Stories": The passage of the House health reform bill (HR 3962) on Saturday was "the clearest sign yet that the Democratic Party is, once again, for better and for worse, a big tent," according to Beinart -- an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. "By essentially sacrificing abortion and immigrant rights to get conservative Democrats to vote for expanded health care coverage," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "restored the old hierarchy" that once "helped Democrats establish dominance on Capitol Hill" -- and it "was a long time in coming," he continues. According to Beinart, the bill "passed because the House contains dozens of culturally conservative Democrats, many of whom voted yes on reform," adding, "Had Democrats nominated cultural liberals for those seats, those seats would now be held by Republicans, who would certainly have voted no." He adds, "And had Democrats tried to force those conservative Democrats to vote for a bill that permitted government funding of abortion, the Democrats themselves would have voted no" (Beinart, "Blogs & Stories," The Daily Beast, 11/10).

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