The Wonk Room

The Far Reach Of Stupak’s Amendment

By Igor Volsky on Nov 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

The Far Reach Of Stupak’s Amendment

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Over at FiredogLake, Jon Walker points out that the Stupak Amendment “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the Exchange from offering abortion coverage. The amendment stipulates that “no funds” authorized under the health care reform bill “may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case…[of a risk of death of the mother, rape, or incest].”

But as Walker explains, while the bulk of the federal money may lie in subsidizing coverage for middle class Americans, the federal dollars appropriated through HR 3962 touch “many insurance plans directly and indirectly.” The Stupak amendment would prohibit insurers from selling abortion coverage in the following ways:

1) Any policy that is sold within the Exchange: A strict interpretation of the Stupak language suggests that since the Exchange is established by the federal government, any plan that operates within the Exchange would not be able to provide abortion coverage. However, since Stupak allows insurers that operate plans within the Exchange to sell abortion riders, one could also assume that a policy in the Exchange could still offer abortion coverage.

2) Policies in the Exchange that receive risk-adjustment dollars: Even though the risk adjustment mechanism is distributed from a pool that is seeded with insurer dollars, the government distributes the dollars, which adjust for individuals who receive government-subsidized coverage. Moreover, one could also argue — like the Bishops did — that once insurer money enters a risk adjustment mechanism that is administered by the government, it automatically becomes government money. Under this explanation, insurers that sell abortion riders may not qualify for risk adjustment payments.

3) Policies in the Exchange that are directly subsidized by the government: Anyone who receives government affordability credits (Americans between 150-400% FPL) would not be able to purchase an insurance policy that includes abortion coverage. Insurers are also required to accept all applicants and would have to stop offering abortion coverage once it accepts its first federal-dollar beneficiary.

4) Employer-sponsored policies that receive reinsurance funds: The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses dependents of such retirees.” Employer-sponsored plans that offer abortion would not be eligible for this funding or would have to forego the benefit.

5) Employer-sponsored policies that receive “wellness program grants”: The bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award Wellness program grants to small employers. Employers would have to segregate their wellness programs from their health benefits in order to receive the credit and provide abortion coverage.

6) Employer-sponsored policies that receive small business credits: For small businesses that want to offer health insurance coverage, the bill provides a tax credit over a two-year period will help them transition to or continue providing health benefits to their employees. In order to receive the tax credit, small businesses would have to stop offering abortion coverage.

In 2015 and beyond, the Commissioner can allow larger employers to enter the Exchange, permitting the Stupak amendment to further restrict their ability to offer abortion coverage.

Pro-life proponents may claim that Stupak simply preserves current policy but if they bother to examine the implications of their amendment they would discover that it actually accomplishes their goal of significantly restricting access to abortion.






8 Responses to “The Far Reach Of Stupak’s Amendment”


  1. Bondo Says:

    That is a pretty big logical stretch to claim that insurers would not be able to offer abortion coverage riders if they receive risk adjustment. Drawing out the flimsiest legal interpretation possible is not the same as drawing the actual legal interpretation.

    While the Supreme Court established a right to have an abortion, they did not establish a right to have it funded by the government or the right to have it covered by basic health insurance. The pro-choice ranks need to be creative to maintain access rather than complaining about the democratic process not delivering them their ideal result.


  2. Anandakos Says:

    I think we need to establish a non-profit organization explicitly created to fund abortions. It would have no “women’s health” or “family planning” functions. Just providing abortions to women who want them.

    I expect it would be well-funded.


  3. John Manifold Says:

    But Cokie lauds the bishops as humanitarians:

    You have to understand, here, the role of Catholic bishops. They have been among the strongest supporters of health care for decades. For many, many years, the Catholic Bishops Conference has said that universal access to health care is, quote, “a basic human right.” So, when they said that without this anti-abortion language they could not support the House bill it became a real problem, because this is an issue where they have credibility.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120234413


  4. KenZ Says:

    I think it’s time to push a parity amendment that would not allow coverage of male STDs. I’m pretty sure that male STDs must come from objectionable behavior, and I don’t think my tax dollars should cover the treatment since the disease is a punishment from God. I would, of course, allow for coverage in cases of rape or incest.

    Men who think they may need this coverage (think of the prostitution usage on C Street) can but insurance riders at their own expense.

    Sure this is bad policy, but chlamydia is God’s will as much as an unintended pregnancy.


  5. Njorl Says:

    That is a pretty big logical stretch to claim that insurers would not be able to offer abortion coverage riders if they receive risk adjustment. Drawing out the flimsiest legal interpretation possible is not the same as drawing the actual legal interpretation.

    That’s one big logical leap for mankind; one small step for Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.


  6. Gus diZerega Says:

    Anandakos is correct. A independent trust funded by those of us who actually respect women and their situations would go far towards defanging these twerps. I discuss the idea in a bit more depth here.


  7. FloJo Says:

    stupak@mail.house.gov

    let him know that restrictions based on gender
    are UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least. Do any
    similar sexual restrictions exist for the male
    gender?



Jump to Top

About Wonk Room | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
image Register imageimageRSSimageimage imageimage
image
Latest Posts

Advertisement

Issues

Alerts

image
Sign up for Wonk Room Alerts



image
Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll


imageAbout Wonk RoomimageimageContact UsimageimageDonateimage