Why The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access
Why The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access
Our guest blogger is Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false. Here’s what the Stupak Amendment does:
1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government “affordability credits.” As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).
2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death.” Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.
3. It allows for a useless abortion “rider”: Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.
4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers: Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility “because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services.
One in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Eighty-seven percent of employer plans offer abortion coverage. None of that will matter if the Senate takes its cues from the House. In every other way, this bill will expand access to health care. But for millions of women, they are about to lose coverage they currently have and often need.
25 Responses to “Why The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access”
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Hi Jessica,
I’m finding Stupak-Pitts really confusing. You write: “But for millions of women, they are about to lose coverage they currently have and often need.”
Who are these women, and what kind of coverage do they currently have?
Thank you!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:43 amJust remember that health care reform is about expanding choices, that the govt. will not come between you and your doctor, that nobody will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pmI have a friend who works at planned parenthood, and she claims that the insurance companies who provide abortion coverage do not cover it well. She says the amount of money that they cover for abortions is very low. Is that true? Could someone look this up for a few different insurance policies, or link me somewhere with this information?
November 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pmAnonymous Coward – I was referring to the women who currently have abortion coverage through their employer plan but who may enter the Exchange because they leave or lose their job or their employer stops offering health insurance benefits.
Jon – There is not a lot of information available about the level of abortion benefits provided in insurance plans. The Guttmacher Institute would likely be the best resource on this question. Certainly plans that offer limited coverage should be improved, but there will be no opportunity to do that if the Exchange excludes abortion coverage altogether.
Thanks for the questions.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pmIn this day of marketing slogan vs reality, it bugs me that “Pro Choice” camp is unable to come up with anything except “abortion rights” instead of something like “woman’s rights.” The neobarb extremists continue to out market the competition and act as though Milly and Maude want nothing more than to spend a quiet day enjoying an abortion procedure, when what the religious right really want is female servitude to the superior male. Or perhaps they want their coat hanger stock to recover to the halcyon days before Roe v Wade, women and life and heath be damned.
Regardless of the rights rational, it’s time progressives wake up and attack the right for its chauvinism and its wish to return our daughters to the days being nothing more than a vessel; barefoot and pregnant. How many of our modern, cowardly politicians would vote to restrict reproductive rights when reframed as a female citizens right to equal access to the promise of the The Declaration of Independence or maybe even the Constitution.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pmI don’t like the Stupak amendment, but I don’t understand this part of your argument:
3. It allows for a useless abortion “rider”: Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.
That’s what “insurance” is supposed to do for any/all of us right? Help all of us plan for completely unexpected events. You can argue woman shouldn’t be forced to pay for such a rider, or argue/claim many women would not be able to afford that rider, but I don’t see how the rider itself would be useless or never used. And as I said above, I see no problem with requiring people to plan for unexpected events, that’s the point of insurance.
( I dislike the amendment in part because I dislike the bill itself for reasons that Kucinich and Marcia Angell have outlined, briefly, what we the people want is health care, not health care insurance and so there is no need to include the insurance companies in health care reform. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html )
November 9th, 2009 at 2:09 pmThank you for this great piece, Jessica. We can always count on you for clear and thoughtful analysis of reproductive health and rights issues.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pmViva Abursto! The days of politely requesting to “choose” our “choice” are OVER. This is about women’s civil rights, period. Rachel Maddow predicted a revolt, and she’s gonna get one.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pmanon,
The rider is stupid because it only covers one procedure. Most people don’t buy separate riders for prostate exams, CAT scans, appendix removal, cancer treatment, etc. When you pay for health insurance, you are planning for any number of unexpected events, but you are pretty much guaranteed to use your insurance at some point. That’s why abortion coverage in a plan makes sense and an abortion rider doesn’t. Most women expect that they will be part of the 2/3 of women who won’t have an abortion. For that 2/3, paying extra money that could go towards retirement or food or clothes or college or regular insurance premiums is like wasting money. As part of a normal plan, at least premiums will go towards a pap smear or immunizations or something like that even if they don’t go towards an abortion.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pmThanks for this very clear coverage. I am tired of people making excuses that they really don’t”understand” as an excuse NOT to be outraged and I don’t even want to hear ANYTHING from so called progressive men who stood by screaming about the public option helping women while NEVER addressing the abortion issue. and I was on EVERY health care email list ok? SO I KNOW which organizations AND WHO REFUSED TO EVEN SAY THE WORD: ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION there got it? Because now you don’t. All women can join the women in the military and the Native Americans in losing their rights, only proving the old adage: if you silent when they take away rights from the most oppressed, there will be no one to speak up for you when they take away your rights.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:16 pm#2 hits home for me. Health insurance has an exception that does not pay when your health is at stake but if your health is at stake AND you are raped (for teens, I guess this means if you are under 18 and your partner is old enough for statutory rape to kick in) they would provide it.
Of course, this hits at the Hyde Amendment itself but covers more people (see #1), and Hyde is a problem itself. But, since poor people aren’t as respected, this gives a broader target. So, pragmatically, it’s good too.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:49 pmMinerva,
There is a difference between an elective medical procedure and a necessary one. Abortion on demand is an elective procedure. It is NOT a necessary procedure. It is in the same boat as liposuction or laser eye surgery. Cat scans or cancer treatment are necessary procedure for HEALTH.
If you are pro’choice and sexually active, you are probably in a high risk group of having an unwanted pregnancy, thus buying the rider will provide insurance for your abortion. All pro’choicers buy the rider to supply abortions for each other. It is fair!
Don´t make a prolifer pay for your elective procedure. You wouldn´t want to pay for someon´s liposuction?
We buy HOUSE insurance for unexpected fire, floods, ect
CAR insurance for unexpected accidents
ABORTION insurance for unexpected pregnancies.
So yes, Jessica Arons, we buy insurance to plans for UNEXPECTED EVENTS!
The amendment is fair for all. It is NOT an abortion ban.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pmThanks for a great piece Jessica! It was an incredibly helpful summary.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pmquietstrenght … No. There is no “health” exception to the rule, so even when it IS clearly medical necessary, the rule kicks in. Your examples also suggest bias. Laser eye? Wearing glasses is not akin to being pregnant. Liposuction? Pregnancy is like having fat thighs? Patent b.s.
Furthermore, why is a special amendment targeted based on the religious/moral beliefs of some legitimate here? Any number of things covered are not totally necessary. If I have a cavity, I don’t NEED to get it filled any time soon. Sure, it will hurt, less in some ways than a pregnancy, but I don’t NEED it. Ditto a knee operation. I can limp around in pain, after all, without it.
Insurance is broad based. It covers any number of procedures. That is the nature of the ‘unexpected’ covered. We don’t buy insurance for specific things, like certain types of fires or certain types of health ailments. We by fire insurance, health insurance.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pmInsurance is broad based and covers everything? Thanks I didn’t know that but will get on the phone right now and ask my home owners insurance why I have to pay a seperate “rider” for my wife’s engagement ring and computer.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pmThe act does go a long way toward regulating the conscience of a woman having the abortion. It allows for a ‘mainstream’ pro-choice argument (the idea that we can all understand if a woman wants to have an abortion after she’s been raped); however, it offends the fundamental principal that a woman’s body is still her own, to be regulated by her own conscience, her own choices, and her own insurance, with no separate obligation to purchase an insurance rider should she decide she requires an abortion. It also sets men and women apart from one another in the workplace, with a woman shouldering yet another cost burden should she need to insure her body differently from her male counterparts in order to sustain her employment.
I believe that this amendment is not only invading a woman’s rights with regard to her body, but it is also allowing the government inappropriate access to her conscience, her wallet, and her equality with men in the workplace. It’s a step back, for sure.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:34 pmWhy is it that the Right claims an exemption from paying for a legal medical procedure when I have to pay for a war that I oppose? How do you reconcile that?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pmHealthcare reform is important and indeed, access to healthcare is a basic right. However doing away with a baby via elective abortion is not healthcare at all; it is murder.
Nobody has ever died for lack of an abortion.
Health care reform effort is trying to ensure that all Americans have some basic, rudimentary medcial insurance. By definition that means it will not cover elective procedures.
Considering that almost three-quarters of Americans oppose taxper-funded abortions, and that the reform is supposed to be about basic (i.e. without bells and whistles) medical insurance, the Stupak amendment has saved the bill.
Now we just need to ensure the national medical plan would cover the indocumentados. These folks work hard, but because the lack medical insurance and end up using the emergy rooms for what should be routine matters, in addition to fulfilling our moral obligation of universal access to healthcare, it simply makes economic sense to include them.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pmOh here we go again acting like a dysfunctional family that’s always contentious over a matter far less serious than what we should be focused on. This should be about health care, not abortion. Leave it to an ignorant man to come up with this monkey wrench. The Pro-Life always cry for the rights of the unborn but where are they when the unwanted are born? They are not pro-life. They are simply pro-birth! The Pro-choice care more about life outside the womb. That seems more pro-life to me.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:40 pm~Michele
Michelle – I agree with you that this health care reform discussion ought to be about healthcare and not about abortion. That is because abortion is Not healthcare, it is murdering a baby. Again; nobody ever died for lack of an abortion.
Pro-lifers are on hand and do quite a bit to help new mothers. Certainly as a society we ought to do more, but Pro-life groups do help these women and your ignorant swipe is simply incorrect.
True, in this country it is legal to do away with a baby if you like. However that does Not mean the taxpayers should pay for the abortion.
Many do not realize how this issue can de-rail the entire health care reform effort.
Obviously those on the hard-Left are very intererested in helping poor women do away with their babies, so why don’t they raise money of their own – start a foundation – and pay for the abortions themselves via special grants and assistance? Why do they insist that others pay for what they (the Left) want?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:02 amKen –
Many people have died from not having an abortion. In many ways, a safely done abortion is safer than the process of labor. And while the mortality rate of giving birth has dropped significantly in the past hundred years, it still does happen, and still in fairly large numbers.
As to whether abortion is murder or not – well, if you consider it to be murder, than no policy argument is really relevant. But for those who do not consider abortion to be murder, this is a significant concern.
In this country, the majority do not believe abortion is murder. That is why abortion is legal, at least in some form, in every state (abortion in the case of incest could not be allowed if the abortion was murder). And coming from that stand point, this is an important issue to discuss and fight for.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:33 amYou must be joking Josh.
Nobody ever died by not having an abortion.
Moreover, the sort of basic medical coverage we are considering quite naturally would not cover elective procedures like abortion.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pmYou people are crazy! Killing an unborn baby IS murder! If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t do what it takes to get pregnant. It’s just like any other lesson in life. If you don’t want to get burned then don’t touch the hot stove, if you don’t want to get soaked then don’t walk out in the rain. If you don’t want to be pregnant then don’t have sex! It’s as simple as that! In the Bible it says no person is a mistake, God wants that person here for a reason and that’s why people are born everyday, for a reason! Having an abortion because YOU slipped up is wrong. You made the so called “mistake” so live with it.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pmHow is it “elective” to have abortion when it would significantly harm your health not to have one? Seriously, how? Abortion is not covered for health of the woman except for the mental health of a pregnancy on account of rape.
Explain why the latter is proper for a “health” exception and not the former? Please. Deny it all you want. Thousands of women have their health seriously threatened by going through with a pregnancy. Denying this as if it is some sort of joke is easy for someone who doesn’t have to go through it or doesn’t know someone who has to go through it. For others, not so much.
“broad based and covers everything”
Hyperbole — who is saying “covers everything?” Who? It is annoying (and other things) to deal with such patent b.s. Again, various things that seriously would help our health is not mandatory. Some were not available until fairly recently. In some way they are “elective.” But, we target one specific one based on the moral opinions of some [hey, using birth control is murder! the pill can abort fertilized eggs!!!!! human life!!!!!].
Helps some if you b.s. when you do it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pmYes, some DIED here and abroad (some still do) when they don’t have an abortion, some (but not all) when they had an illegal one, some being minors or other desperate people.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm