Blogs Comment On Abortion Issues In Health Reform, HPV Vaccinations For Immigrants

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Health Insurance / Medical Insurance;  Cervical Cancer / HPV Vaccine
Article Date: 18 Nov 2009 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

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

~ "DeGette: Stupak Agenda Is Much Wider Restrictions on Abortion," Brian Beutler, Talking Points Memo: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) "takes issue" with Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) "interpretation of the events leading up to the vote that completely changed the stakes of reform debate," Beutler writes. In an interview, DeGette said Stupak threatened to kill the House health reform bill (HR 3962) if he was not allowed to introduce his amendment further restricting federal funding for abortion coverage. Under pressure from lawmakers and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) allowed the vote on the amendment, which passed on Nov. 7. DeGette said, "This all happened Friday night, so then on Saturday morning we arrived, and most of the members hadn't been involved in this, and Bart told them this was just the Hyde Amendment, and many of them were confused." She added that the Catholic bishops "were really cranking up the heat on a lot of our colleagues," and Pelosi "was really afraid that she would lose the whole bill about this" (Beutler, Talking Points Memo, 11/13).

 ~ "Health Reform and Abortion: The Stupak Amendment Hurts Women," Laurie Rubiner, Health Affairs  Blog : The Stupak amendment "goes against one of the fundamental tenets of health care reform: do not leave anyone worse off than they were before reform," Rubiner, vice president for public policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes. She explains that the amendment "leaves few possibilities" for women to obtain abortion coverage because it would prohibit such coverage under the public option, ban anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage and bar all plans in the health insurance exchange from offering the coverage. Although "an insurer could theoretically offer a single-procedure rider for abortion coverage, ... the logistics involved make this a highly unlikely option," Rubiner says, adding, "At worst, other provisions of the bill actually prevent health plans from doing so." In fact, "the actual effect of the Stupak amendment would be to ban abortion coverage across the entire exchange -- for women who receive a subsidy and for women who pay 100% of their premiums with their own money," according to Rubiner. "This is very significant because up to 30 million Americans may purchase health care insurance through the exchange," she writes (Rubiner, Health Affairs Blog, 11/16).

 ~ "Senators: Just Say No to the Abortion Amendment," Lee Sarokin, Huffington Post  blogs: "There has to come a time when principle is more important than compromise or re-election," Sarokin, a retired federal judge, says. "I do not criticize those who voted for the [Stupak] amendment, either Republicans or Democrats, on the grounds that they oppose abortion," Sarokin writes. However, he continues, "I do fault those who voted for the amendment because they thought it was essential to pass health care reform or worse, that they feared to do otherwise might jeopardize their re-election." He notes that support for abortion rights is "at the heart of the Democratic platform." Sarokin tells Democrats to "put forth a bill in which you believe, and let the Republicans, if they must, filibuster until they are blue in the face, but preserve your principles and keep your promises in the process." He concludes, "And if the only way that you can be re-elected is to sacrifice those principles and renege on those promises, then you probably should not be running for public office in any event" (Sarokin, Huffington Post blogs, 11/17).

 ~ "The Bishops' Line in the Sand," Amy Sullivan, Time 's "Swampland": USCCB approved a statement Monday night that "appears to indicate that they will not accept anything less than Stupak language in the final version of the bill," Sullivan writes. The statement says, "In an essential step, the House voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm the longstanding and widely supported precedent that no federal funds will be used to pay for elective abortions." Sullivan writes that the "phrase most likely to rile pro-choice leaders ... is 'elective abortions,'" adding, "At a time when anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric is already flying fast and loose in the pro-choice community, this implied assertion that anything short of an abortion to save a woman from imminent death is 'elective' won't do much to calm the waters" (Sullivan, "Swampland," Time, 11/16).

 ~ "New York Times Article Misses the Point(s) On Stupak Amendment," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: A recent article in the New York Times "can now be added to the growing list of media analyses that fail to accurately portray the implications of the Stupak amendment should it become law," Jacobson writes. The article "gets the issues wrong from the get-go by framing it as a fight about federal subsidies," when the issue "is about a far larger, and wider-reaching issue: insurance coverage of abortion per se," as a recent NPR story correctly noted, Jacobson continues. The Times article "misrepresents issues that were far more accurately covered in the Times' own editorial on this issue a week ago," which said the Stupak amendment is "a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman's right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors," Jacobson writes (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 11/16).

 ~ "Casey Hints He Will Oppose the Stupak Amendment," Igor Volsky, Think Progress ' "The Wonk Room": Volsky writes that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting that antiabortion-rights Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) likely will oppose the Stupak amendment. According to Volsky, a statement from Casey's office is "promising" but does not "guarantee that the senator won't vote for a bill that includes stricter abortion restrictions." The statement says 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." Volsky also notes that Casey provided the only Democratic vote to at least four anti-choice amendments, including one offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that closely resembles the Stupak language (Volsky, "The Wonk Room," Think Progress, 11/13).

 ~ "HPV Vaccine Mandate for Immigrant Women Eliminated: A Win for Sexual Rights," Audacia Ray, International Women's Health Coalition's "Akimbo": Ray writes that the federal government has announced that effective Dec. 14, vaccination against the human papillomavirus "will no longer be required for immigration purposes." Under the current policy, female immigrants ages 11 through 26 seeking permanent residence or entry to the U.S. are required to be vaccinated at their own expense. Ray credits the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum as "major force behind" the change. She concludes, "We should all celebrate the lifting of the mandate as a significant achievement" (Ray, "Akimbo," International Women's Health Coalition, 11/13).

~ "The Abortion Ban Is Bad Medicine," Willie Parker, "Blogs & Stories," The Daily Beast: Parker, a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, says that he has seen throughout his career as an ob-gyn "what happens when women can't afford the abortion they need." Women who will be unable to purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage under the Stupak amendment "will suffer because [the bill] keeps the health care they need unaffordable," Parker writes. He continues that his religious beliefs prevented him from providing abortions early in his career, adding, "It took me a while to realize that by refusing to end a woman's pregnancy when she decides abortion is the best course for her, I was compounding her suffering, the very opposite of my goal as a physician. I can no longer separate abortion from the rest of women's medical needs." He concludes, "Every woman should have the same chance at staying healthy, whether she pays part or all of her insurance bill" (Parker, "Blogs & Stories," The Daily Beast, 11/16).

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