
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
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.


C Street wins!
November 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThat 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.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pmI 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.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pmBut 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
November 11th, 2009 at 9:00 amI 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.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:45 amThat’s one big logical leap for mankind; one small step for Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:20 amAnandakos 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.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmstupak@mail.house.gov
let him know that restrictions based on gender
November 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pmare UNCONSTITUTIONAL to say the least. Do any
similar sexual restrictions exist for the male
gender?