In short, it is because that over time, as the health exchanges are expanded, it will inevitably lead to the cessation of all abortion services coverage. And that goes FAR, FAR beyond the Hyde legislation.
The rabid religious right hasn't been waging this incremental battle since the ink dried on Roe v. Wade in 1973 for nothing.
And now, certain Democratic Party members of the ultra-right religious cult
The Family, that commune in The House on C-Street, are radicalizing the movement further, piggybacking it into the ongoing health care reform battle.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
The Family also has a hatred for organized labor.
But first, they came for the women.
Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund,
lays it all out:
If you thought that just because abortion is a constitutional right and part of basic reproductive health care it would be available in the reformed health insurance market known as the Exchange, think again.
The Stupak Amendment,
passed Saturday night by the House of Representatives after a compromise deal fell apart, potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women’s access to abortion.
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.
David Dayen at Firedoglake
has more:
November 9, 2009
Bart Stupak and his anti-choice partners like to suggest that their amendment merely extends the Hyde Amendment about public funding for abortion to the new health care bill. In actuality, over time this amendment would end reproductive choice insurance coverage entirely.
The amendment designates two areas where abortion coverage could not be offered – the public option, and on any plan receiving subsidies in the exchange. Because insurance companies would have to take all comers and not deny anyone coverage under the new bill, they would not be able to restrict customers who receive subsidies. So effectively, every plan in the exchange would not allow abortion coverage.
Right now, the exchanges are restricted to the self-employed, the uninsured, and certain small businesses. But there are provisions in both the House and Senate bills to open the exchanges over time. In the House,
that exchange could theoretically be opened up fairly rapidly:
In year one, 2013, only individuals without employer provided insurance and the “smallest” employers (25 or fewer employees) would have access to the exchange. In year two, 2014, “smaller” employers (50 or fewer employees) could access the exchange. By year three, 2015, all “small” employers (100 or fewer employees) would gain access to the exchange, and the exchange Commissioner could permit larger employers (greater than 100 employees) to be eligible for the exchange.
In theory, by 2015 all employers, and therefore all Americans not on Medicare or Medicaid, could start using the new health insurance exchange for health care. This would give nearly everyone the ability to choose the public option if they wanted. Of course, that would rely on the Commissioner deciding to throw open the exchange to every business, as well as all large employers choosing to provide coverage through the exchange. . . but, I don’t see that happening nearly as quickly as is theoretically possible.
The Senate has language like that as well, albeit at a slower rate.
Sen. Ron Wyden has been trying throughout the debate to open the exchanges more and more, and
Max Baucus agreed in the Senate Finance Committee to work toward some version of the opening of exchanges. So we can expect something along those lines going forward.
Only now, with the Stupak amendment, every one of those expansions, to mid-size and then large employers and possibly even individuals who are offered employer coverage, would further restrict coverage for reproductive choice services. If the exchanges do expand – and they should – the result would be making all abortions purely an out-of-pocket scenario.
And then there’s the question of what is considered, in technical medical terms, as an abortion. Hospitals determine a terminated pregnancy where the fetus was not expelled as an abortion, requiring a “D&C” procedure. Under the Stupak amendment, insurance companies would not be allowed to cover this procedure either. It’s possible that this would fall under the “life of the mother” exemption, which is in the bill, but that would only be the case if the life of the mother was directly threatened. There is no “health of the mother” exemption.
Stupak and his anti-choice cadres would counter that women could get a “rider” for abortion services, but asking women to plan for an unplanned event is offensive to the pro-choice community.
Progressives generally support opening the exchanges, which would also open access to the public option. Under the Stupak amendment, that would have the effect of chipping away at abortion access slowly but surely.
UPDATE: McJoan has
much more on this.
Oh, and one other detail that should not be overlooked:
Stupak Biofuels Rider benefiting Michigan sneaked into Health Bill: Pork for his anti-choice crusadeNice, how the immediate payoff for Stupak is also included in this abomination of a bill.
IMHO, the answer is reconciliation, with Single Payer as the replacement legislation, to be passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate, with the House following suit.
This is class warfare, people. It's time to put aside the bickering and pick up a torch and pitchfork.