Explain the Abortion controversy regarding HCR to me please

THey can have an abortion if cases of Rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy right?

After that, elective abortions will be covered as well.

that is baldly false. Unless those women aren't on the exchanges, which is virtually impossible, they will have the very same rules they have now. The only people who may not have those rules are those whose insurance isn't sold on the exchange, and even then, the rules might well be forced on them too, if the insurance company sells any insurance on the exchange.

They just have to be managed separately from the plans that get subsidies. And the exchange plans will be required to cover birth control, most likely for free; give free reproductive check-ups, and a whole host of benefits women don't have with insurance today.

Absolutely nothing about abortion has changed since the health care bill was passed.

And the statement that "nothing has changed" is patently false.

Assuming these policies will be offered, and I have my doubts, it is hard to see enough of a market. Insurance works one of two ways. Either it shares risk over a very wide pool (some of whom will likely need to use medical care and others who won't) or it works by allowing people to in essence pre purchase a product they know they will need with tax free dollars and at a bulk rate (vision plans). Clearly abortion insurance would be like the vision plan. But the dynamics there also don't work. Unlike eyeglasses, abortion doesn't have a predictable interval during which you will need one and only one. Also, you stop needing abortions after a certain age so that there is a fairly short window during which you will need abortions. I frankly think this product would have to be priced quite high relative to the cost of an abortion.

nothing will change. You will still have to pay out of pocket. Why is this an outrage? I have no problem with abortion not being covered by federal dollars. All other reproductive costs will be covered.
Use birth control paid for by the government, and you won't have to worry about an abortion. If rape, incest or life of the mother are concered you will be covered.

I am a NARAL member, maybe they will revoke my membership for my position. I think this is mountains out of a mole hill.

it is all money (at least insurance). The Hyde Amendment permits states to spend their money on abortions if they see fit. This prevents states, in the case of the high risk pools, and women in both the case of high risk pools and the later exchanges, from spending their own money on insurance that covers abortion. Incidently, you are wrong about private insurance coverage, most actually do cover abortion (including the policy covering both the RNC and the FRC before they found out). But regardless, what is there that will limit this to abortion? What if the next thing the Stupaks of the world decide they don't want either the feds or us spending our money on is an AIDS cure, or a lung cancer treatment, or a vaccine that prevents STD's? Once you let government ban the private funding of legal medical proceedures on the grounds that they don't like them where does that stop?

suddenly finds out that her fetus is damaged to the extent that it will probably be born dead or live only a few minutes or hours, and she wishes to terminate? If her life isn't threatened, then she would have to carry that fetus to term, right? Or bear the full cost of a very expensive termination requiring hospitalization. Or what if the fetus dies in utero? Would she be forced to carry a dead fetus, if her life wasn't threatened?

There are a number of reasons why women have late term abortions of wanted fetuses and they are not all life threatening to the woman, but they may damage a woman physically...

They would have a better idea of federal government rules on these gray areas, that aren't gray to me but are because of federal laws and laws in varying states.

I'm talking about women who have health insurance but not for abortion coverage because she doesn't see into the future and know what can tragically go wrong in an otherwise healthy woman who wants to be pregnant and have the baby. She's not poor, but she's not rich either. She can afford her health insurance. Then later in her pregnancy she learns that her baby has horrible anomalies and she and her family is faced with terrible situation. The way I see this thing, if she didn't have abortion coverage she would be stuck carrying a doomed or already dead fetus until giving birth to it, or she would have to pay huge out of pocket expenses for a complicated late termination. It is not as simple as your idea that since early abortions, typically not nearly as expensive as a late term abortion, it is a cost that can be borne by most women who are not poor.

You need to think this thing through, Sandnsea, before giving this plan your blanket approval. These kinds of pregnancies do happen and they are devastating enough without having financial devastation also heaped on the pregnant woman.

Federal Funds. Just like with Medicaid or Medicare. You do know some young disabled women get their health care through Medicare, right? And you do know they have to pay a premium, right?

We are not talking about the exchanges, which is the equivalent of insurance and will have the rider option and whatever Obama signed in his executive order. Remember?

We are talking about the transitional pre-existing pool that is going to disappear in a few years. It will cover abortion under the SAME terms as women in the military, on Medicaid or Medicare. It isn't a question of my giving blanket approval to anything. It's a question of a completely made up attack. Nothing has changed since the health care bill was passed.

I'm not the one who needs to think anything through. There are a whole lot of people who need to stop kneejerking with the crowd and just THINK for a change.

Doesn't Stupak extend to any insurance under the Obama plan? That was my understanding...which is why the idea of the woman getting abortion insurance coverage separately came up in the first place. If that is the case a woman would have to have the money for an eventuality that may or may not take place...and we are not talking about a woman with a pre-existing condition or a disabled woman on a narrow Medicare exception.

Please clear this up for me because that was my understanding and why my former co-workers at Planned Parenthood are upset...

The right to life groups made up a story about the POOL covering ALL abortions. Of course it was a lie.

But HHS had to issue a statement in response. They clarified the abortion coverage.

The Obama Hate Groups, and that is what they are, took that response to anti-abortion groups and turned it against the administration. That Is What Happened.

Nothing has changed since health care reform was passed. Absolutely Nothing.

Here is a statement from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on their website which I copied 5 minutes ago:

"While we celebrate the passage of health care reform, rest assured we're going to keep working to fix the damage caused by the Nelson amendment. If left intact, the Nelson amendment would be the most severe restriction on private health insurance coverage for abortion in 35 years."

Is Nelson (Stupak) still part of the health care reform bill, as signed into law?

Here. I told you what happened. They're reacting to a response to right to life groups who are saying the pools will cover ALL abortions. How can it be that the exact same program is covering ALL abortions and NO abortions.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/hcrnwwff?qp_source=hcrnwwff%5fpphp

This is a federally funded health plan. Obviously Hyde is going to apply. I don't know why these groups are acting as if this is anything new. The riders allowed for in Stupak will apply to the insurance exchanges.

But boy I bet they're all raising a bundle of money with the hysteria.

I am beginning to believe the politicians in this country are the only ones who are really honest.

PP didn't like Hyde either. But they are strong advocates for reproductive freedom. They won't NOT talk about this.

but that is not my question here. It seems to me that on the exchanges (not the high risk pool) coming up women will have to pay more than they pay now for abortion coverage in their insurance plans because it will have to be separate. That concerns me for the hypothetical reason I stated.

Just asking...

Same as it has been for women using any federal health plan for years. Same as it is for women with all kinds of health insurance plans that don't cover elective abortions.

PP can continue fighting for all these women to have full access to abortion. No problem. I join them.

But when they LIE and pretend something has changed when it hasn't, that's when I am going to step up and call bullshit.

In fact, it would be nice if they created a fund to provide free abortions to women on Medicaid. Where is that fund from all these rich women who care so much???

is always their concern, so they fight for what they believe in. That doesn't surprise me and I don't think they are being deceptive.

If, under this new plan, it will be more difficult (expensive) to get an abortion that is medically necessary to preserve their health than it was in the past, then that is of course a new burden on women, simply because the condition doesn't threaten their "lives," just their "health." THAT IS NEW, right? That, in a nutshell, is what I and PP are saying.

As for Medicaid, here in CT we have a Medicaid waiver to Hyde in effect due to a judge's injunction, which holds even years after it was first issued. For women on Medicaid in CT, things may not change. My worry is for women in states like MS and AL who don't have this provision in state law. It won't get any better and could get worse for them.

And don't be snarky please about "free" abortions. That was actually tried by feminists here in CT. The fund was overwhelmed with requests and ran quickly out of money. So another way had to be found. A federal judge ruled that medically necessary abortions could be paid for out of Medicaid.

So let's separate the two groups here: Medicaid and privately insured. My hypothetical addressed the latter, who in my opinion will have a new burden on them that they did not have before (I'm not defending private insurance before reform, just pointing out the difference). Again with this group, it will not get better and could get worse if they have to ante up extra money for abortion care they may or may not need in the future, that they have not had to do before. And all the free contraceptive care in the world will not prevent these situations where a horrible late term problem is found.

So where are we with women's access to choice? That is the REAL question here.

I hope I have been able to parse my own concerns out for you. I feel that we are both strong Democrats who want the best for this administration. I will always be a loyal Democrat but I will always defend a woman's access to reproductive choice. I have 2 daughters and 3 granddaughters and this is my destiny...

"If, under this new plan, it will be more difficult (expensive) to get an abortion that is medically necessary to preserve their health than it was in the past, then that is of course a new burden on women, simply because the condition doesn't threaten their "lives," just their "health." THAT IS NEW, right? That, in a nutshell, is what I and PP are saying."

Women who did not have access to any insurance because of pre-existing conditions, did not have access to abortion coverage. NO, the PRE-EXISTING POOL does not add any burden to women because the women concerned, CAN'T GET HEALTH COVERAGE NOW. NO, there is NOTHING NEW here, except women who will get to see the doctor for their existing illnesses.

Quit conflating other issues with the current one.

Let's be clear here. I know I veered off topic, but I am asking you NOW about the plan for women who are not high risk and in a private insurance plan that covers abortion for a late term abortion where their LIFE, not their HEALTH, is at risk.

Do they or do they not have a BETTER plan under health care reform than before? Yes or no?

Just the same as it is now. Everybody is going to have to pay something in the exchange. People who pay nothing now, and have no health care, are going to have to pay something. When they pay, they will necessarily have a better situation than they do now. Since they will actually have health care, then why by golly, YES that would be BETTER, and would be BETTER when they are raped, molested, or when their life or health is in jeopardy as well. Just like Medicaid or Medicare or the military covers now.

I have no way of knowing what each individual company in the exchange will choose to offer in addition, and neither does planned parenthood, the aclu, or anybody else.

My wife does surgery scheduling for the OB/GYN office she works at & deals with this regularly.

You either look at your situation and say, wow, I've got three daughters and we're done having kids but mistakes can happen, I better get this coverage.

Or you say, I'll take my chances.

But what you won't have to say anymore is: I can't get my check-ups, I can't get birth control pills, I can't get an abortion if I'm raped because I've got no money, etc etc.

This is one of the damn dumbest complaints against this administration yet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You need to go read what is actually in the health care reform bill before you do your bash-fest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/13874

Obama Administration Applies Stupak Amendment to High Risk Pools
By Jessica Arons
Created Jul 15 2010 - 6:04pm

This week, a commotion <1> arose over the question of whether Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans, also known as high risk pools <2>, can include abortion coverage. The Obama Administration responded immediately by imposing a total ban on abortion coverage in the pools that echoes the Stupak Amendment <3>, even though nothing in the law requires such action.

Women entering these plans are, by definition, those who have experienced serious medical conditions—so serious that insurers are unwilling to sell them insurance. In other words, those who get pregnant are already at a heightened risk for needing an abortion for health reasons when compared to the general population.

Pennsylvania–apparently unintentionally <4>–walked into the abortion debate by approving a program that potentially covered abortion. The plan <5> said no “elective” abortions would be covered, but referenced a statute that does not define the term “elective” and allows an abortion if it is deemed “necessary” by a physician based on “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.” The only situation deemed categorically unnecessary by the statute is sex selection.

Rep. John Beohner and the National Right to Life Committee raised a stink, and the very next day, HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus had this to say <6>:

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Our policy is the same for both state and federally run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

But here’s the catch, nothing in federal law actually restricts the use of federal or state money for abortion in PCIPs.

Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Planned Parenthood's

lose even more in this Health Insurance Reform.
Can this be challenged? Not that the SCOTUS would help much.

Women who can't afford insurance now, have to pay for their abortion now. Women on Medicaid or Medicare, have to pay for their abortion now. Women in the military have to pay.

How in the world is having insurance, with free check-ups, and birth control coverage, and an option to add abortion coverage - losing anything???

my other post in this thread on the application of Stupak

Just like it is for every other program that has direct federal funds.

When there are insurance exchanges, abortion coverage will be offered with a rider type option.

How come the chuckleheads always forget that little detail?

And don't even have insurance for anything else.

Where's the fund for women on medicaid who have always had to pay for their abortions?

A little late to the poor women's compassion party don't you think?

have to pay the rider.

I think you snide regarding poor women's compassion party is unworthy of you-or any Democrat.

The current statement is ONLY about the FEDERAL pre-existing pool. That's ALL.

Insurance can continue to provide any legal service they want, and will. The only plans that will have riders are those in the exchange.

And yes, I find it absolutely hypocritical that all these upscale women, WITH INSURANCE, are in a tizz over abortion coverage - when you haven't heard a peep from them in decades over medicaid or medicare or the military paying for ALL abortions.

It's psychotic hatred of Obama and that is ALL it is. People have completely lost their freaking minds and THAT is what is unworthy of any Democrat.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not.

Priorities, people. Women are devalued and their needs are unimportant. Men? Ahh...that's a different story. Their sex needs outweigh the larger needs of women.

I sometimes really hate this country and its backward nature.

but somehow that little detail keeps getting glossed over. At least they will unless we let them fight to remove that while we're having a hissy over elective abortion coverage.

I need to do more reading about it, especially since one of my students wrote about Hyde/Stupak last semester. I tried to explain that there's not a whole lot of difference between Hyde/Stupak; in other words, you don't need Stupak because Hyde continues to get reauthorized by Congress every year. So what happened must've been that these provisional changes took place as a result of the reauthorization of Hyde. Is that correct?

None. Zero. Zip.

HHS released the guidelines to the FEDERAL pre-existing pool and were attacked from all directions. The POOL is not the insurance exchanges and has nothing to do with Stupak.

"The National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson contends abortion coverage could be permitted in Pennsylvania's high-risk pool because a state law says that physicians can perform abortions if they consider them "'necessary' based on 'all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman."

Obama administration and Pennsylvania officials dispute Johnson's interpretation. Rosanne Placey of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance said, "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions," noting that the state also prohibits the procedure under existing federally funded programs, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (Rovner, Kaiser Health News/NPR's "Shots," 7/14)."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/194930.php

I still want to know what happens to women who may need a late term abortion that threatens her health, but not her life. And don't fool yourself, women CAN and DO find themselves in these awful situations!

I really would like to know what you think about this kind of dilemma.

Anything less than free abortion services, for all, regardless of reason, is the ultimate pro-choice goal.

Thus, *any* steps made which do not meet that criteria are going to be criticized as opposing that goal.

Anything less than elimination of all abortion and birth control, regardless of reason, is the ultimate pro-life goal.

Thus, *any* steps made which do not meet that criteria are going to be criticized as opposing that goal.

Anything in the middle of those two perspectives is going to be assailed from both sides.

Gradecard

A = Liberal and liberal goals

F = Conservative and conservative goals

C = pragmatic, middle of the road, reach out to the other side

--------------------------------------------------------

Most parents greet an "A" on their child's report card with glee and jubilation and a "F" with revocation of privileges and grounding for life. A "C" is ho-hum and probably should expect to be assailed from both sides based on its lack of merits. What is new is watching the derision and opposition to those trying to get an "A" on the report card.

What you posted could be used for many issues.


I just haven't seen it written in such a way that everyone could understand with such clarity.

It also leads to thinking about the ultra-harsh/perfectionist parents who ground children for getting anything less than straight A's, as well as the parents who simply don't care what kind of grades their children have.

were ho-hum. I told them school was their job and they were rewarded when they worked hard enough to bring home a report card without any "C"s or lower. Make whatever you want out of it, the bottom line is that it worked very well.

An "A" certainly would be met with jubilation, and an "F" certainly should be met with scorn. Where it falls short is grading this absolutely as a "C". I'd rather consider it a B- for pro-choicers and a D+ for anti-choicers, as rights have been neither eroded nor expanded. Furthermore, there was no reasonable expectation that this was the moment by which we'd expand pro-choice - not once did I ever hear leading up to HCR that this would be the time we'd expand pro-choice coverage. If you've got a dated citation that would contradict that statement, I'd love to see it. Since the overall goal is to keep choice if not expand it, I'd say this is rather moot for the pro-choice movement.

Neither great nor harmful, which should never be "assailed".

Of course, I'm going to toss that transcript in a sack, throw it in a river, and then throw the river into a black hole. But if we're giving out grades, I suppose I'll arbitrarily give you an "F" in life.

Segregation is now in place.

McCain's air quotes around the "health" of the mother:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZOyxfiNoU

"Whites only" family planning locations?

What?

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:segregation

...wasn't much help.

Perhaps you could offer a few paragraphs to explain your perspective, and how it relates to "segregation".

:spray:

Shouldn't that BE the goal? If not, give a justification.

And the majority do not want elective abortions covered by their tax dollars.

People who want free abortions should really just start a fund to pay for them. It's the same as tax dollars and then women on Medicaid could get abortions too. Not just women fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance.

even though its none of their damn business.

You've gotta think this one through.

There was actually some Republican congressman or senator who said that he had no interest at all in paying for anything to do with women's reproductive systems because he didn't have one himself. Cancer -- unwanted pregnancy -- Pap smears--whatever. That's *her* problem.

Hekate

That's the way it is. It's ridiculous to argue about federal funds paying for abortions because it's just not going to happen.

And yes, when you have taxpayers involved, they get to express opinions. Even stupid ones. They're objecting to covering birth control pills too, did you know that? I certainly hope somebody is making sure they don't win that one while everybody is fighting this particular lost cause.

to overturn Hyde because we have an fucked program that caters to the religious right who think abortion is immoral. And because THEY don't believe the government should violate their beliefs women have to suffer or die. That is the truth and no sugar coating is going to change it.

determine who should or shouldn't get access to affordable medical care.

We already have that. How did you miss it?

And you and others wonder why Democratic support has plummeted.

Just insult your constituencies and toss them under the bus for your favorite politician.

Call me a Democrat, a Liberal, or any other nasty name you like, but I'll go on record saying it's none of my damn business--nor the business of the state--what reason a woman lists when she decides to terminate a pregnancy.

:banghead:

For example, I have to pause when a woman is being forced into having an abortion by an abusive partner, or when entire groups of people are compelled to abort (or be sterilized) in the name of eugenics.

Rape, incest, health of the mother, informed consent, and so on... I guess it seems overly obvious to me, so perhaps I've missed the point you're trying to put forward?

How would either of those be figured into the "reasons" allowed/disallowed for abortion?

Look up Hyde Amendment. It is my understanding that the health care/ health insurance bill recently passed reaffirms the Hyde Amendment and does not go beyond it.

The Hyde Amendment states that FEDERAL funding will not be used for elective abortions, with exceptions for the health of the mother (which would be medical) and rape and incest. Elective means not medically necessary (and believe me, there ARE medically necessary abortions).

The Hyde Amendment has been in place since 1976. THIRTY FOUR YEARS.

IT IS NOT NEW.

All of us who are pro-choice and believe women need to have access to the full range of potential medical care that they, as women, will need and that men will never need, agree that the Hyde Amendment is a sucky law. But it is the law and it has been for 34 years.

During all this time, insurance companies have routinely offered plans to companies that make women pay out-of-pocket for their own reproductive health care needs. Some plans will pay for it; many will not, especially if the owner of the business objects to it being written into the plan offered to his employees. Out-of-pocket expenses would be for things like birth control pills, diaphragms, IUDs, and the like, which are only obtainable by prescription. Abortions are rarely a covered expense, although they remain a completely legal medical procedure.

However -- and here's where I see red myself -- boner pills for men are pretty much always covered by insurance plans.

As far as I can tell, the one area where the health care/health insurance bill makes a change from Hyde (and for the worse) is the idea that women could pay for a rider to their insurance policy in case they ever wanted or needed to have an abortion. That is discriminatory (there's no rider provision for men and their sex-for-pleasure drugs) and intrusive (it's one of the most--if not the most-- common medical procedures in the country, yet not one that any woman wants to have be subject of common knowledge and gossip).

You don't sign up for health insurance picking and choosing what you want to have covered, and having to flip a coin to decide what ailment you will or won't succumb to. "Should I go for the cancer coverage? Ahh, no, I'm never going to need that; I eat healthy. Abortion? No, don't need to pay extra for that, because I'm so careful. Prostate problems? Nah, that's something only old guys get, and Jim here is only 35." You see how counterproductive that sort of thinking is?

Bottom line: IT'S DISAPPOINTING, BUT MOST OF WHAT IS IN THERE IS NOT NEW. It was acceded to in an ultimately futile attempt to avoid the culture wars that swirl around abortion. Sadly, the culture warriors are batshit crazy, and among other things they don't believe a woman can die from pregnancy or childbirth, and furthermore, they don't care if she does because they are on a mission from God.

Hekate

I haven't seen that question resolved here. Earlier in this thread I posed the question of an insured woman who is not poor but who has a wanted pregnancy turned into tragedy when she learns later in the pregnancy that she is carrying a fatally damaged fetus or one that has died in utero. If her life isn't threatened, but her health is, then her medical insurance under the new plan would exclude the termination of such a pregnancy, forcing the woman to pay for a hugely expense procedure requiring hospitalization...far more than an early termination. No woman plans to have such a situation in her life but that is what insurance is FOR.

this is a real problem here...

Not just Medicaid. We're talking about a federally subsidized, to the tune of $5 billion, program. The pre-existing pool in question will be a federal pool and about half the states will use it. Some states will run their own.

We are not talking about the exchange.

that covers abortion care just as many insurance plans now do, right? And they won't have to get separate abortion coverage at an added expense, right?

Crickets...

All plans on the exchange either have abortion coverage or don't. For the plans that do have abortion coverage, two payments are required (either 2 credit card charges or 2 checks). This is only for pepole who get government subsidies to help them pay for coverage (people who pay the entire premium on their own do not have to write two checks or have 2 card charges).

The Stupak amendment went beyond that. The Stupak amendment said ANYONE who received even one penny of a government subsidy cannot get a health plan on the exchange that covered abortion. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the Senate and is not the law.

advocating against it? Here is what they say:

While we celebrate the passage of health care reform, rest assured we're going to keep working to fix the damage caused by the Nelson amendment. If left intact, the Nelson amendment would be the most severe restriction on private health insurance coverage for abortion in 35 years.

Note "most severe restriction."

Since I am a former PP employee (state level) I know something about the organization. They are obviously seeing access to a woman's right to choose being limited "severely" in the new health care reform. Where is the disconnect between what you are saying and what PP is saying?