House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics, No to Women’s Health and Privacy

[IndianaGreen]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 7, 2009

House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics, No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called House passage of a stunning last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an outrageous blow to women's freedom and privacy — and she vowed to fight to remove this provision as the process goes to the Senate.

The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), was adopted late tonight by a margin of 240-194.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[jwirr]

1. Is there anything in the Senate version that might save this in

conference? Also the Supreme Court - any hope there? Obviously we once got these laws through the Supreme Court.

[RBInMaine]

2. OH BS ! Want an abortion? Fine. Go pay for it. It is not about anti-women, and it would be STUPID

and CRAZY to fight over this rather than pass some very needed health reform. Get educated, use birth control, and if that fails, take some personal responsibility and go pay for your own abortion. I'm pro-choice, but limited healthcare dollars are NOT for abortions unless you are talking rape, incest, or the life of the mother. They are for other illnesses and diseases. You are fighting the WRONG fight with this. Get real !

[atreides1]

3. You're not Pro-Choice

You're limited choice, just like pro-lifers are really anti-abortion!

Why not put a limit on the availability of Viagra, unless it's being used for procreation?

[phleshdef]

8. If a person is pro allowing a woman to choose whether or not to have a baby, they are pro-choice.

They don't have to demand that the government subsidizes it to qualify.

I disagree with the amendment, I hope it gets dropped before the final bill, but anyone who would vote against a bill banning insurance companies from gender discrimination and then turns around and tries to call themselves an advocate for women's health rights needs to spend some time looking in the mirror.

[RBInMaine]

9. I am for abortion being 100% legal. Want one, fine and dandy. Your choice. So YOU go pay for it.

[RBInMaine]

14. And you are nuts. Only a nut thinks pro-choice MUST mean pro-pay. I am also for the government

allowing us to buy and consume alcoholic beverages. There. That was once a big government no no. However, does that mean food stamps should be used for buying beer? Hell NO ! Want that, buy it yourself. One can be totally for supporting the right to do something and also be for some personal responsibility in this world. I support the right to choose. I also think we need to invest public dollars in education and prevention as a health matter, but NOT abortions themselves which are virtually entirely preventable, and if they do occur, are relatively cheap. Also, there may be some private programs (family planning, etc.) that will help poor folks pay for it. I'm all fine and good with that. Just not PUBLIC dollars for actual abortions. Want one, fine, but YOU pay for it.

[IndianaGreen]

4. The amendment is to prevent people from purchasing insurance that offers abortion

We are talking about people paying out of their own pockets for the health coverage they want.

You don't know what you are talking about!

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[PeaceNikki]

5. But you're cool with healthcare dollars paying for these unwanted pregnancies to go to term?

[RBInMaine]

7. Again, want an abortion, fine and dandy. Go have 100. Just YOU go pay for it.

[IndianaGreen]

10. You don't know what you are talking about!

You don't know what you are talking about!

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[PeaceNikki]

11. But you're cool with healthcare dollars paying for these unwanted pregnancies to go to term?

I wrote an OP asking people who feel like you do some questions, and none have answered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6960206&mesg_id=6960206

[RBInMaine]

15. Yes. Because now you are talking about a full term, innocent baby. Apples and oranges entirely !

[phleshdef]

6. Something like 88% of abortions happen in 1st trimester and cost around 300 bucks...

Allowing the current gender discrimination policies that insurance companies engage in cost women a lot more than that.

I've said it a billion times now, I don't agree with that amendment, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker when you consider everything else on the line.

[RBInMaine]

12. Condoms are what, around 5 or 10 bucks? Even FREE in some places. Try THAT !

[phleshdef]

13. Not to mention HCR still covers birth control.

At the end of the day, I think women that pay into this thing should be allowed to get abortion coverage, but its certainly not what healthcare reform is or should be all about.

[PVnRT]

24. Except many poor women can't afford birth control, either

But don't let the get in the way of your OMG OUTRAGE.

[madfloridian]

16. SO..NARAL and Planned Parenthood are getting unrecs here now?

I recommended this, but it did not make a dent.

Shame on us for rolling over and playing dead as they use women as scapegoats.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Women have joined LGBTs under the Democratic bus

and are being told to STFU, just as LGBTs have been told since Rick Warren's invocation.

[madfloridian]

18. You are right.

.

[golddigger]

19. Yep, sadly it seems that way.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Stupak prevents insurance companies from offering abortion coverage

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion "rider" that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

kicking this because more people are becoming aware of how onerous this bill is against women, and against LGBT couples who won't get covered as couples by the exchange.

[ClarkUSA]

21. You're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote -->

"While the amendment would prohibit abortion funding through the exchange, its advocates have tried to explain that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses."

http://www.examiner.com/x-25800-DC-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d8-Prochoice-movement-dealt-serious-blow-with-passage-of-Stupak-amendment-in-health-care-reform-bill

[joeycola]

22. Thanks for this. very helpful. REC

[ClarkUSA]

23. "Co-Chair of House pro-choice caucus "enormously encouraged" by Obama statement on Stupak amendment"

Jolly this, Bitter One:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8747267&mesg_id=8747267