Blogs Comment On Nelson, Stupak, Mikulski Amendments In Health Reform Bills

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Abortion;  Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 09 Dec 2009 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

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

~ "Stopping Stupak in the Senate," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), The Hill's "Congress Blog": "I'm extremely disappointed that one of my fellow Democratic colleagues is introducing a measure similar to the House's Stupak-Pitts amendment" in its health reform bill (HR 3962), Gillibrand writes. "I was proud that the bill brought to the Senate did not have this provision in it, but the opponents of choice are fighting hard to get it put back in, and I am prepared to fight this effort," she continues. Gillibrand notes, "It's important that we set the record straight about some grave misinformation being spread about what the Senate bill means for women and reproductive rights." She writes that the bill "maintains a historic compromise that we have had in this country by barring the use of federal funds for the full range of reproductive services except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a woman," adding that it "is the current law of the land and the Senate bill goes to great lengths to maintain current federal law." The bill also "would segregate public funds from private funds, so that only people's personal, private money will contribute to their reproductive coverage," which is "not an accounting gimmick as some critics have falsely charged," Gillibrand writes. She continues that the Senate bill "would also require that at least one plan within the health insurance exchange covers reproductive services and one that does not," and "it would authorize the [HHS secretary] to audit any and all plans to make absolutely certain that abortion is not under any circumstances being paid for with federal dollars." According to Gillibrand, "The claim that proponents of the Stupak-Pitts amendment often make that this is simply a continuation of current federal law is simply wrong," adding that "such proposals go far beyond settled law, and will in fact bring about significant change and dramatic new limitations on reproductive access in this country" (Gillibrand, "Congress Blog," The Hill, 12/7).

~ "The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux," Amy Sullivan, Time's "Swampland": Although the Senate's proposed Nelson amendment is "virtually identical" to the House's Stupak amendment, "there is one important difference between the two," which is that "the Nelson provision will certainly not pass when the Senate considers it," Sullivan writes. Both amendments would prohibit federally subsidized insurance plans -- public or private -- from covering abortion services. The Nelson amendment "would need 60 votes to pass, and pro-choice organizations count at least 41 senators who are solidly on their side," according to Sullivan. Nelson said last week that he would filibuster a health reform bill if his amendment were not included, "but he's since walked that back," she continues, adding that it is "unclear that [Nelson] was ever willing to vote for health reform, even if his amendment were to pass." However, the "real focus" of the abortion coverage debate "is what happens in conference committee once (if) there are Senate and House versions to reconcile," Sullivan says. She continues that House Democrats who supported the Stupak amendment "aren't willing to see health reform go down in flames, and they don't need language as strong as the Stupak amendment to support final legislation" (Sullivan, "Swampland," Time, 12/8).

~ "The Abortion Debate: A Primer," David Herszenhorn, New York Times' "Prescriptions": Herszenhorn on Monday published a "primer" on the debate over insurance coverage for abortions services in health care reform legislation. According to the blog, "Abortion opponents want tight restrictions on coverage for abortions, including a ban on coverage for any health plan that is purchased even partly with new federal subsidies," while supporters of abortion rights "acknowledge that Congress will not allow federal money to be used to pay for abortions, but they do not want any restrictions beyond those in existing law." Herszenhorn says that the lawmakers to "keep an eye on" include Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an abortion-rights opponent who has proposed an amendment in the Senate that mirrors the House's Stupak amendment, and abortion-rights supporters Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). Herszenhorn says that the "bottom line" is that while insurance coverage for abortion services "is typically not the top priority of the millions of uninsured Americans, ... politically the health care legislation cannot be finalized without a hard-fought compromise on this deeply divisive and emotional issue" (Herszenhorn, "Prescriptions," New York Times, 12/7).

~ "Stupak Concedes Abortion Provision Unlikely To Pass Senate," Michael O'Brien, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room": Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Monday told the Detroit Free Press that he believes it is unlikely that the Senate will pass anti-choice restrictions similar to the ones he sponsored in the House, O'Brien writes. According to O'Brien, Stupak said, "We always knew the Senate was an uphill battle." Stupak says he has enough votes in the House to defeat a health reform bill if his amendment is removed (O'Brien, "Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 12/7).

~ "Stupak-Like Amendment Introduced in Senate; Catholic Bishops Urge Support," Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report's "God & Country": The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' endorsement of the Nelson amendment is "creating the same conditions that preceded the House Stupak vote last month," although the "big difference now is that abortion-rights groups have launched a vigorous campaign to prevent the passage of a Stupak-like amendment in the Senate," Gilgoff writes. In a letter sent on Monday, USCCB urged senators to support the Nelson amendment, arguing that it offers "essential changes ... to ensure that needed health care reform legislation truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all." The bishops argued their position that the Nelson amendment "does not change the current situation" regarding abortion in the U.S., and "does not restrict abortion or prevent people from buying insurance covering abortion with their own funds" (Gilgoff, "God & Country," U.S. News & World Report, 12/7).

~ "Everything (Sexual) Is Abortion," Amanda Marcotte, Double X's "XX Factor":It's unclear whether the Mikulski amendment -- which would require insurers to cover preventive care services -- includes contraception, "but it's clear to me that the anti-choice lobby fears it does," Marcotte writes. Their arguments are "a reminder of how little protection basic health care for women has, due to anti-choice lobbying against any health care they feel encourages women to be sexually free," Marcotte says. She continues, "I suspect that part of the objection to this amendment is the possibility that it will cover hormonal contraception, which hardcore anti-choicers believe causes abortion," when in fact it suppresses ovulation. Even if coverage for the birth control pill is not required under the amendment, "there is almost no way that counseling and prescription-writing for the pill won't be," according to Marcotte. "That's because the vast majority of gynecologists use the occasion of the Pap smear to talk about contraception options and write prescriptions," she says. To opponents of abortion rights, that "is a form of paying for abortion," she adds (Marcotte, "XX Factor," Double X, 12/4).

~ "Women's Preventive Health Amendment Added to Senate Reform Bill," Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's "On Women": Kotz writes that although the Mikulski preventive care amendment does much to address women's health issues that were overlooked in the original Senate health reform bill, it "ignores the elephant in the room: abortion coverage." Abortion-rights advocates are trying to keep additional abortion restrictions out of the Senate bill, but Kotz says she "wouldn't be surprised if the Senate bill winds up looking the same as the House's when it comes to banning abortion coverage." She concludes, "And I can't help but wonder whether the women's preventive health amendment was meant to serve as a consolation prize for those women who will ultimately wind up feeling cheated if abortion services aren't covered in their plans" (Kotz, "On Women," U.S. News & World Report, 12/4).

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