SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Tortured Logic of Health Care's Abortion Foes
Dec 11, 2009
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
Anti-abortion forces suffered a setback recently in their drive to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform. The Senate voted to reject abortion limits in its version of the health care bill, defeating a proposal that would have banned abortion coverage by insurers who participate in a program that uses federal tax dollars to subsidize coverage for low and moderate income Americans.
"This is the first thing we've won in years," Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said of the amendment's defeat. But an amendment almost identical to the one the Senate rejected is still attached to the House version of health care reform, thanks to Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, called the Stupak amendment "the most crushing blow we have seen to reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade."
Bart Stupak begs to differ. In an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, headlined "What My Amendment Won't Do," he defended his abortion ban saying it "maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion."
Stupak's defense of his amendment shows the tortured logic of excluding abortion coverage from health care. Under the Hyde amendment, he says, "the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program provides health insurance through a variety of companies to more than eight million Americans--but it does not allow abortion coverage in any of its policies. Yet the same companies that offer these abortion-free plans to federal employees also offer separate plans with abortion coverage to non-federal employees."
You see? It's simple! Just quit your federal job and get a new employer who doesn't offer "abortion-free" insurance if you think you might have an unplanned pregnancy.
Jan Schakowsky pointed out on the floor of the House how ridiculous the anti-abortion amendment really is:
"This Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes way beyond current law. It says a woman cannot purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars . . . in every single public or private insurance plan in the new Health Care Exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers an abortion--a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman plans an unplanned pregnancy. . . . Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not for further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care."
Despite the criticism, Stupak says, "the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions."
But what is simple and clear when the government has a very limited role in health care for its citizens becomes a lot more far-reaching and complicated when that role expands.
It was always galling that federal employees, and women serving in the military in particular, were singled out for discrimination under the Hyde Amendment. If the federal government wants to ban abortion for all women, that is at least a logically consistent position. But to target groups of women--those who work for the government, and those poor enough to qualify for government-subsidized health care--is simply unfair.
The unfairness becomes more apparent to all as more women are affected.
In the context of the health care debate this is a largely symbolic issue. Declining access to abortion, reproductive health care, and health care in general across the country affects far more women than will be affected by the ridiculous, jerry-rigged, partial-non-coverage envisioned in the Stupak Amendment.
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
If the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are worried about keeping the government out of people's health care decisions a good place to start is by dropping unfair and convoluted rules preventing some insurers from covering abortion services.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Progressive
Ruth Conniff
Ruth Conniff is Editor-in-chief of the Wisconsin Examiner. She formerly served as Editor-in-chief of The Progressive Magazine, and opened the Progressive's office in Washington, DC, during the Clinton Administration, where she made her debut as a political pundit on CNN's Capital Gang Sunday and Fox News. Se moved to Oaxaca, Mexico, for a year in 2017, where she covered U.S./Mexico relations, the migrant caravan, and Mexico's efforts to grapple with Donald Trump.
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
Anti-abortion forces suffered a setback recently in their drive to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform. The Senate voted to reject abortion limits in its version of the health care bill, defeating a proposal that would have banned abortion coverage by insurers who participate in a program that uses federal tax dollars to subsidize coverage for low and moderate income Americans.
"This is the first thing we've won in years," Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said of the amendment's defeat. But an amendment almost identical to the one the Senate rejected is still attached to the House version of health care reform, thanks to Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, called the Stupak amendment "the most crushing blow we have seen to reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade."
Bart Stupak begs to differ. In an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, headlined "What My Amendment Won't Do," he defended his abortion ban saying it "maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion."
Stupak's defense of his amendment shows the tortured logic of excluding abortion coverage from health care. Under the Hyde amendment, he says, "the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program provides health insurance through a variety of companies to more than eight million Americans--but it does not allow abortion coverage in any of its policies. Yet the same companies that offer these abortion-free plans to federal employees also offer separate plans with abortion coverage to non-federal employees."
You see? It's simple! Just quit your federal job and get a new employer who doesn't offer "abortion-free" insurance if you think you might have an unplanned pregnancy.
Jan Schakowsky pointed out on the floor of the House how ridiculous the anti-abortion amendment really is:
"This Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes way beyond current law. It says a woman cannot purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars . . . in every single public or private insurance plan in the new Health Care Exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers an abortion--a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman plans an unplanned pregnancy. . . . Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not for further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care."
Despite the criticism, Stupak says, "the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions."
But what is simple and clear when the government has a very limited role in health care for its citizens becomes a lot more far-reaching and complicated when that role expands.
It was always galling that federal employees, and women serving in the military in particular, were singled out for discrimination under the Hyde Amendment. If the federal government wants to ban abortion for all women, that is at least a logically consistent position. But to target groups of women--those who work for the government, and those poor enough to qualify for government-subsidized health care--is simply unfair.
The unfairness becomes more apparent to all as more women are affected.
In the context of the health care debate this is a largely symbolic issue. Declining access to abortion, reproductive health care, and health care in general across the country affects far more women than will be affected by the ridiculous, jerry-rigged, partial-non-coverage envisioned in the Stupak Amendment.
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
If the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are worried about keeping the government out of people's health care decisions a good place to start is by dropping unfair and convoluted rules preventing some insurers from covering abortion services.
Ruth Conniff
Ruth Conniff is Editor-in-chief of the Wisconsin Examiner. She formerly served as Editor-in-chief of The Progressive Magazine, and opened the Progressive's office in Washington, DC, during the Clinton Administration, where she made her debut as a political pundit on CNN's Capital Gang Sunday and Fox News. Se moved to Oaxaca, Mexico, for a year in 2017, where she covered U.S./Mexico relations, the migrant caravan, and Mexico's efforts to grapple with Donald Trump.
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
Anti-abortion forces suffered a setback recently in their drive to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform. The Senate voted to reject abortion limits in its version of the health care bill, defeating a proposal that would have banned abortion coverage by insurers who participate in a program that uses federal tax dollars to subsidize coverage for low and moderate income Americans.
"This is the first thing we've won in years," Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said of the amendment's defeat. But an amendment almost identical to the one the Senate rejected is still attached to the House version of health care reform, thanks to Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.
Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, called the Stupak amendment "the most crushing blow we have seen to reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade."
Bart Stupak begs to differ. In an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, headlined "What My Amendment Won't Do," he defended his abortion ban saying it "maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion."
Stupak's defense of his amendment shows the tortured logic of excluding abortion coverage from health care. Under the Hyde amendment, he says, "the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program provides health insurance through a variety of companies to more than eight million Americans--but it does not allow abortion coverage in any of its policies. Yet the same companies that offer these abortion-free plans to federal employees also offer separate plans with abortion coverage to non-federal employees."
You see? It's simple! Just quit your federal job and get a new employer who doesn't offer "abortion-free" insurance if you think you might have an unplanned pregnancy.
Jan Schakowsky pointed out on the floor of the House how ridiculous the anti-abortion amendment really is:
"This Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes way beyond current law. It says a woman cannot purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars . . . in every single public or private insurance plan in the new Health Care Exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers an abortion--a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman plans an unplanned pregnancy. . . . Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not for further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care."
Despite the criticism, Stupak says, "the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions."
But what is simple and clear when the government has a very limited role in health care for its citizens becomes a lot more far-reaching and complicated when that role expands.
It was always galling that federal employees, and women serving in the military in particular, were singled out for discrimination under the Hyde Amendment. If the federal government wants to ban abortion for all women, that is at least a logically consistent position. But to target groups of women--those who work for the government, and those poor enough to qualify for government-subsidized health care--is simply unfair.
The unfairness becomes more apparent to all as more women are affected.
In the context of the health care debate this is a largely symbolic issue. Declining access to abortion, reproductive health care, and health care in general across the country affects far more women than will be affected by the ridiculous, jerry-rigged, partial-non-coverage envisioned in the Stupak Amendment.
The importance of this debate may be that it galvanizes more women to stand up to elected officials like Stupak who want to interfere with their health care and dictate what services they can and cannot get because of the moral sensitivities of certain vocal constituents.
If the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are worried about keeping the government out of people's health care decisions a good place to start is by dropping unfair and convoluted rules preventing some insurers from covering abortion services.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.