Stupak amendment should be stripped from bill
Over the summer, while tea baggers were protesting health care reform, legislators had come to a consensus regarding the funding in any bill which might in the future pass concerning abortion. This potential agreement was known as the Capps Amendment.
This amendment would not have allowed private plans offered through the health insurance exchange to use federal dollars to cover abortion care. It would, however, have allowed abortion care to be paid for out of funds garnered through individuals’ premiums. In addition, the Capps Amendment would have required that one plan within each region or area be required to offer abortion care and at least one not to. But this type of rational concession fell short and eventually, with powerful lobbying forces that should recognize that there is a separation between church and state, the House voted to approve the Stupak amendment.
The new amendment now bears the name of Rep. Bart Stupak and under which any plan purchased using any federal subsidy cannot cover abortion services, even using private funds. The Stupak amendment forces insurance companies, which at present provide abortion coverage, to choose between continuing that coverage, or dropping it for “all women” if they choose to participate in health care exchanges, and sell their product to government-subsidized consumers, as was reported by Salon.
This amendment, if it makes it into the final health care bill will have a devastating effect, particularly on poor women. By placing limits on these exchanges, most of those participating will have some type of premium credit or affordable subsidy.
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post summed it up very appropriately by saying that “The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate abortion plans is both cruel and laughable.” It means that all women with insurance through the exchange will not have coverage for this type of service. “Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive it from their employers.”
There has been an amendment in place in this country that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger. The Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976. It seems amazing that the current House amendment that is now in play would go even further than Hyde, reaching beyond the use of federal funds and attaching itself to restricting those women from access who do not even use federal subsidies. This could go well beyond affecting just poor women; it could impact many middle class women as well.
Many women are outraged by the potential impact that Stupak’s amendment would have, and House leaders for choice have pledged to reverse the restrictions. The Progressive and Pro-Choice Caucuses, led by Rep. Diana DeGette has told Speaker Pelosi that she has 41 signatures saying that they will not vote for a final bill that places further restrictions on women than does current law in the Hyde Amendment.
According to the Hill newspaper, DeGette said she would be meeting with the president this week to press her case against the Stupak amendment. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House also told The Hill that she and other pro-choice lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill. “I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that the language won’t be there. And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make this case.”
When the conference between the House and Senate finally does take place, that will present the opportunity for members to strip out the Stupak amendment, and Democratic supporters are vowing to work hard in order to get rid of the offending language at that point in the legislative process.
The Stupak Amendment is clearly representative of what so many on the right feared, and that is letting the government have a major voice in controlling personal health care decisions and doing this by letting Congress deny women access to a perfectly legal procedure. The Hyde Amendment already is in place and bans tax dollars from paying for abortions.
With tens of millions of women potentially being affected under the Stupak amendment, the necessity of stripping it from the final bill is imperative. Private insurance companies should not be barred from offering reproductive health care to women. Whichever side of the debate you are on, it should be clear that this amendment is an attack on personal freedom, and it should not be tolerated.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Carol Jensen is a long-time Barstow resident, graduating from Kennedy High School and Barstow College, where she was an English instructor for many years. Much of her time now is spent writing political and social commentary. She may be contacted at cajensen49@msn.com.
