Will be happening today as Obama signs his executive order limiting abortion rights under health care reform. Attendees include Bart Stupak and his bloc of 12 anti-choice Democrats. The event will be closed to the news media, I suspect because any photographs would come out looking suspiciously like the top image here.
Similar Posts:
- The abortion “compromise” by Jill December 19, 2009
- Today, I just can’t. by Jill December 9, 2009
- Meet the HR3 Ten: Joe Donnelly by Guest Blogger February 17, 2011
- Congressman booted from Democrats for Life because he wants to reduce the abortion rate by Jill July 14, 2009
- Barack Obama is a smelly Black. No, a scary Arab. No, an uppity Negro. by Jill February 19, 2007
It’s important to note that this executive order does not place any new restrictions on abortion rights or abortion funding–it only reinforces the restrictions put in place by the Hyde amendment, which limited federal funding for abortions.
Stupak and co. were afraid that all those evil liberal pro-choicers would somehow weasel their way into getting around the Hyde restrictions. This is Obama’s attempt to placate him–Stupak and co. wouldn’t have let the HCR bill pass otherwise.
I’m not saying I’m in favor of the Hyde amendment’s restrictions; I just think we should all be clear on what is really going on here.
If HCR wouldn’t have passed without this compromise, would you prefer there be no HCR at all?
I’m not being facetious, just genuinely curious.
I would prefer HCR to pass with the compromise than to not pass at all. I’m very glad that it passed. And I understand the necessity of the compromise, I’m just disgusted by Stupak et al, and I’m disgusted by Obama’s inviting them to a celebratory order-signing. Sign the order out of necessity, fine, but don’t further scratch the tummies of the anti-choice jerks who held up this legislation and are hostile to women’s rights. And I really, really hope that the DNC supports pro-choice challengers in those 13 districts, but I’m not holding my breath.
Ok, now feminists have to go after Viagra. If we want to repeal the Hyde amendment and to get rid of the damage done by this bill, we have to hit the guys where it hurts. Either women get their reproductive care, or no one gets any reproductive care at all. Guys should not get vasectomies or viagra unless women get free, unfettered care.
And for the abortion is not health care crowd: erections aren’t health care either, and I don’t want to pay for it.
melancholia, that’s a hard question. There’s a lot of great things about HCR as it passed. No more pre-existing conditions, no more cutting people off because they get sick, and young adults stay on their parents plans until they’re 27. And of course the subsidies are a huge thing. But there’s some things that we really need, like the public option, like expanding medicare to people in their 50s, that didn’t happen, and then there’s some negatives, like this and the requirement for people to have health insurance, and lowering the amount one can put in an FSA. It’s really a mixed bag and I just wish it would have come out differently. But can I say whether or not it’s ok to cut abortion rights and tax people more who still can’t afford health care (or who don’t want to pay a private company they disagree with) and cut people’s FSAs in exchange for giving other people health insurance? I can’t make that call. I can just hope that it will be better this way, since that’s what we’re now stuck with.
You mean there will be an absence of Steny Hoyers in attendance? Probably right.
Think about the big picture. We’ve just allowed health insurance companies to completely deny coverage for a medical procedure. In fact, we’ve mandated it.
If I was a profit-driven health insurance company, I’d be trying to figure out what other procedures I could be forced to deny coverage for. Health insurance companies must have a goal of denying coverage anyways (Less payouts = more profits = happy stock owners etc).
Perhaps they could fund campaigns to whip the right wingers into a frenzy over the risk to the unborn if the mother receives any kind of medical treatment. Cancer treatment, pain killers, flu shots, etc. could harm that innocent life and should therefore be denied coverage to the mother.
But why stop with things that only affect women? Surely there’s a good moral argument to enforce the Bible with health insurance coverage. If someone falls to the deadly sin of gluttony and becomes obese, for instance, they should be forbidden health care in order to allow God’s will to determine the outcome. Right?
Really, all disease and accidents could be seen as manifestations of God’s will. Who are the health insurance companies to question the will of God? Surely we must ban them from helping sick or wounded sinners to escape God’s wrath.
As someone uninsured, I cannot say “hooray” for this bill, even in theory. The bill hurts women in ways aside from abortion/reproductive rights, and that is (in my opinion) no victory for any one.
The bill, from my understanding, will allow for age-rating, the practice of imposing higher premiums on older people. This practice affects women disproportionately.
The bill also will allow for the continuation of gender-rating, the practice of charging women higher premiums simply because they are women.
Add that to two additional ways, aside from reproductive rights, that women lost (the battle, that is, the fight is NOT over!).
Another issue is that the bill–as it stood when it was passed–imposes harsh restrictions on the ability of immigrants to access health care, such as a 5-year waiting period on permanent, legal residents before they are eligible for assistance such as Medicaid.
But perhaps what it most disgusting to me about the bill, aside from the fact that women were sold out, is that it is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
I just don’t see this bill as reform or change. It seems to me to be a victory for the insurance companies, and that’s about it.
Since private insurance companies will now be required to cover maternity care, I wonder if they won’t challenge this anti-abortion language. Afterall, it’ll be much more costly for them – abortion is much much cheaper than maternity care and if the first doesn’t happen, they will have to pay for the later.
@Laura–actually, this executive solidifies the misconception that Hyde is settled law–despite the fact that Hyde has to be approved each year.
And also–sorry, but “just” keeping the restrictions of Hyde are pretty frakking draconian. I’m not comfortable with penalizing poor women, which is what Hyde does.
Also, it does seem to expand the restrictions:
Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.
Exactly how is this less restrictive than Stupak-Pitts? Two of the provisions of Stupak Pitts were:
*Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
*Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
@melancholia–Why is it that when we must compromise, it’s women’s rights that are on the chopping block? I’m fucking tired of being the one to take one for the team. Abortion is a part of health care, period.
Andi, as maggie said earlier, insurance companies would much rather shell out $300 for an abortion than $10,000 for a pregnancy. I doubt they are really invested in denying care like this, because they will make all kinds of deals to keep people out of the hospital.
My only hope is that, because this is an executive order, Obama can overturn it quietly whenever he likes. I thought that a president has the prerogative to overturn any given executive order? Maybe I’m mistaken. I know it’s probably wishful thinking, but it would be cool if he did just that after health care reform was adopted.
@Sheelzebub: I don’t see how this is more restrictive than Stupak-Pitts at all. Stupak-Pitts dealt with private insurance plans. This bill only talks about federal funding.
Let me reiterate that I am definitely not in favor of the Hyde amendment. I’m just trying to get the facts straight about the executive order.
The Executive Order prohibits insurance companies from covering abortion if they receive affordability tax credits. These are private insurance plans, not Medicaid (which is what the Hyde Amendment prohibits from covering abortions). In addition, the “strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans” sounds a lot like the similar requirements under Stupak-Pitts.
Stupak Pitts was controversial because it expanded these restrictions to private health insurance plans, if the insured person (or, let’s be blunt here, the woman) had any kind of tax credit or exchange. It took the idea of “not paying for something we don’t like via tax dollars” and stretched it several hundred miles. It went beyond Hyde. And it looks as though the Executive Order has done the same thing.
“The bill also will allow for the continuation of gender-rating, the practice of charging women higher premiums simply because they are women.”
Are you sure? One of the selling points that Nancy Pelosi kept reiterating was that “This legislation will mean that being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition.” I’ve read over and over in the media that the legislation puts an end to gender-rating. Is this incorrect?
so maybe one tactic that could be approached is for abortion rights organizations to “lobby” the insurance companies to get them to lobby congress to repeal the abortion language. It’s in the self-interest of the insurance companies to do so, and they’ve certainly got the money/power to get what they want from congress.
Kristin – on the gender rating, what I’ve heard is that it will ban it in the individual market, but the larger group markets, which is the majority, they will still be allowed to do this. Pretty crappy.
That this has turned into a debate about whether or not this bill is worth having at all–anti-choice legislation or not–suggests a stunning amount of able-bodied privilege among the commentariat.
Let me break down my average medical expenditures for the month as an uninsured person with disabilities:
$2000: monthly prescriptions
$100: primary care visit (if I keep myself down to one a month)
$350-$400 dollars (specialist visits, per visit. I try to limit these even though my illness is not being effectively managed. I can’t afford to see the specialists who I need.)
$500: blood tests, monthly
$2000: blood tests, every three months
Here’s the thing. If the bill helps me save some of this? If this bill means that one day I’ll be able to get out of the financial hole I’ve made just to keep myself alive? Thing is, I’ll probably have the $300 that I’ll need for an abortion if I should ever need one. If nothing else, I’ll go into a lot *less* debt than I currently have to do in order to make health decisions for myself.
Of course, it’s ludicrous for me to speak of being able to make “health decisions for myself” at all right now. Right now, I don’t have the luxury of making any decisions. I don’t have the thousands of dollars I need to keep this up. I have to rely on charity, and that could give out at any moment. I am lucky that I’m *not* among the ones who lost all access and died. In order to get some of my prescriptions, I have to go to a fundamentalist Christian charity (from the Bush faith-based initiative). I have to tell them that I am a Christian (I’m not). I have to tell them that I’m heterosexual (also not). I have to listen to proselytizing and show signs of “progress” in my “walk with God.” I think about my proximity to death–should the charity run out of money–every goddamned day. What if someone from the charity finds out I’m queer? I won’t bother to belabor how dehumanizing these experiences are.
Not that I am happy about the anti-choice restrictions. Not by a long shot. But as a woman and a feminist, it is far from the most important health issue for me and for many other women I know. And it’s hardly the most financially restrictive among *so many other* expensive treatments and procedures that so many people–many of them women–need every day.
In the United States, unfortunately, those of us who are ill don’t get a lot of choices. We are lucky to get anything at all. Going into the Christian fundie charity and pretending to read my Bible and pray and shit? I’m one of the lucky ones. I get my medicine in return.
Its worth pointing out that the theory Obama can overturn this, or that what we’re looking at is a strategic feint, is assuming a pretty rosy future. What Obama has done is set a terrible precedent here in the process of passing a bill which might not survive. The most important aspects of the bill don’t take effect until 2014 and in the meantime we have a pissed off population, an economy that still sucks, and two elections (the closer of which has the Democrats poling quite poorly). Theres no guarantee that the Democrats will maintain control of either house of Congress, no guarantee Obama will get a second term. This bill could be all we get, and we could well end up with even less once the cuts, challenges, and funding attacks are done. Somehow I suspect that if the worst come to pass this executive order won’t be one of the things to go.
“I would prefer HCR to pass with the compromise than to not pass at all. I’m very glad that it passed.”
It mandates every one of us buy private insurance plans and it does absolutely nothing to hold down costs. It doesn’t maintain the abortion status quo, it will ensure most private plans (the ones we’re forced to buy) won’t cover abortions, even if those abortions are needed to preserve the health of the mother.
I can’t begin to fathom why you’re glad this passed.
“I don’t see how this is more restrictive than Stupak-Pitts at all. Stupak-Pitts dealt with private insurance plans. This bill only talks about federal funding.”
Most, if not all, private plans will now “opt in” so they can get public funding. The result is the same.
Thing is, I’ll probably have the $300 that I’ll need for an abortion if I should ever need one.
What an excellent position from which to determine the level of other feminists’ privilege.
I am glad that the health care bill will do something for you and your medical bills. It will do something for me, too. Whatever your disability or illness may happen to be, I don’t suppose you would be quite as positive about the legislation if treatment for it/them had been specifically exempted from coverage.
And whatever your disability or illness may be, I’m positive that, like pregnancy care, it’s very very far from “the most important” health care issue of a great many women. However, I do believe we should be outraged and treat it as a big deal if your particular medication or treatment were specifically banned from coverage or reimbursement. Even though it’s not, you know, our problem,, the way the need for an abortion is not, at present, yours.
Like you, I’ve got the $300 for an abortion right now, and I’m not even pregnant, so I don’t need it. None of the many things I need to and can’t afford to see a doctor for right now have anything to do with reproductive care. What that has to do with how important this restriction is, I really can’t understand.
“Like you, I’ve got the $300 for an abortion right now, and I’m not even pregnant, so I don’t need it. None of the many things I need to and can’t afford to see a doctor for right now have anything to do with reproductive care. What that has to do with how important this restriction is, I really can’t understand.”
Um, I don’t have it right now. I never said I did. I said I might, one day, if I ever get to stop sinking thousands of dollars a month into my current health costs (all of this of course in debt, as it isn’t as if I have it on hand).
The point was: $300 is not expensive in the vast wilderness of cost prohibitive medical procedures. $300 is not much more than a couple of visits to a family doctor. Fortunately, Planned Parenthood has a pretty wide-ranging infrastructure throughout the United States to pick up the slack and provide access. I am not incredibly worried about this measure for this reason. I can’t think of a single medical necessity that has as much grassroots support as abortion these days.
To put it differently: When my condition became such that I was uninsurable and dependent on charity hand outs for basic maintenance, I was able within a matter of minutes to find several providers who would gladly provide me with free OBGYN IN THE BIBLE BELT. It took months of full time searching to find any other type of care.
It is obviously wrong for anyone who needs any medical procedure to have to depend on a non-profit’s charity, but that’s how it is in this country and how it will be for the indefinite future, as far as I can tell.
That said, I think upper middle class white able-bodied cis feminists generally overstate the importance of abortion coverage to the overarching theme of Women’s Health. I think that happens routinely on this site as well as on others. I get disgusted when I see feminists who have the luxury of putting primacy on abortion coverage forgot about every single other health issue that affects women in this country.
$300 doesn’t cause a lifetime of dire poverty. Several thousand dollars per month does. So does cancer treatment. Or diabetes or HIV maintenance… And it’s none of your goddamned business what my disease is, though it’s not rare. It’s not well-known and has the aura of being “rare” in popular culture. One in five people have it, though. And more women than that.
Mkay, so my longer comment is in moderation, but here’s the thing: Look, anyone who has to be worried about the lack of coverage for abortion procedures right now? Anyone in a position to find $300 cost prohibitive? Is most likely uninsured in the first place, and experiencing a host of other health care needs as well. If not uninsured, then on Medicaid. For those of you who haven’t had firsthand experience, Medicaid is better than nothing. It’s most helpful for covering a limited number of medications, but it is not as if it’s possible for anyone on Medicaid to call the local OBGYN and schedule an abortion for next week. In order to get an appointment on Medicaid, one usually has to spend hours (and sometimes days) on the phone trying to reach one of the five or so Medicaid-approved doctors in town. Once that happens, appointments are usually a good three to five months out. So, you say it’s an emergency? Tough shit. Go spend a day or two waiting at the local emergency room.
There’s a whole lot of outrage over the letter of the law. Not a whole lot of knowledge about how the system works in practice, for the women who have to rely on it. My guess is that, for those of us who currently fall through the cracks and continue to do so–abortion coverage won’t change much. See, we don’t have access to care in the first place. Not that many upper middle class mainstream feminists had noticed before either, of course.
Actually it doesn’t just restrict the cheaper early elective abortion. It also bans coverage for abortions when the woman’s health is at risk, and if the fetal health or life is at risk. So, if you find out at 5 months that your fetus has no brain stem, or some other problem that will essentially cause it to be stillborn, you aren’t covered. That’s significantly more than $300. Probably more like $10,000 or more if there are complications.
Kristin, I think you’re being a little harsh. Most of us are really happy that at least this bill MAY help many people get insurance (it’s still not clear how much people will have to pay and whether they’ll still be able to afford the premiums). But what most of us are, very legitamatley, upset/angry about is how it was passed only at the expense of women’s basic human rights. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with us making a big stink about that.
maggie: I don’t agree with the anti-choice measures either. My responses were addressed to people who had the nerve to say they didn’t want the bill to pass no matter what–because of the anti-choice restrictions.
And it expressed general frustration, of course, with the other issue: Where the hell was the solidarity of the Feminist Nation while I and so many others struggled… Uh, actually? Nevermind. Forget it.
Kristin, I absolutely agree that people who want to torpedo health care and fuck over the poor are being shitty. That said, this comment:
“Fortunately, Planned Parenthood has a pretty wide-ranging infrastructure throughout the United States to pick up the slack and provide access”
strikes me as incredibly naive. There are counties–and entire huge regions within the country–where there are no clinics at all. PP also has to rely on increased security, etc. thanks to the violence and harassment that anti-choicers bring to the clinics. This access is shaky at best, and the anger you are seeing here is because we see yet another (successful) attempt to restrict access to abortion and reproductive care.
$300 is a fortune for people who do not have it–and as someone who’s been uninsured, I can tell you that I went without doctor’s visits when I didn’t have insurance (because I couldn’t afford them–and I was not eligible for Medicaid–not everyone who is uninsured *is* eligible for Medicaid). If I was pregnant and needed to get an abortion, I would have been screwed. For those women who are on Medicaid and are routinely fucked over by the Hyde Amendment–well, there are still back alley or DIY attempts, often to their detriment. And now the executive order appears to have expanded Hyde by parroting Stupak-Pitts language and increasing the number of women who don’t get coverage for abortion. I won’t apologize for being pissed about that.
To me, it’s not either/or, nor should it be either/or. It’s both/and. Saying I’m pissed off that YET AGAIN reproductive rights have to be on the chopping block is not the same as saying that the bill shouldn’t have passed. I’d rather hold the Dems accountable for rolling over and playing dead, and fight to expand reproductive rights and access to reproductive care than expect some people to take a hit for me.
I understand what you’re saying Kristin. Although I guess I’ve always known it on some level, it’s been so incredibly disheartening to hear so explicitly how many people in this country really don’t think everyone should get healthcare. That one video of the guy with parkinson’s at the protest, where they were practically spitting on him, I just wanted to cry.
Kristin, I hope that you get help from this bill. I wish you didn’t have to demean yourself to get help. That’s awful.
I would have preferred that the bill not pass because it will probably harm the disabled people that I know. For example, my brother is on Medicare. He is a Medicare Advantage plan but the law cuts subsidies for those plans. Since he already spends almost 80% of his $1100 income (all from SSDI) on medical costs, I don’t know how he will make it when his plan cuts back on benefits or raises costs. He already does without heat most of the winter and spends only around $100 a month on groceries. (He is very fortunate that there is a food bank near him. When I was waiting for my SSDI – which took a few years – the only food bank in my area gave me about 3 bags of groceries a year for my daughter and me. That’s all they had.) Most of the people I know on Medicare will be harmed by the cuts in subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans. They will have to do without more of the medical care that they need. (Almost all already do without some needed medical care as well as some food, some utilities, etc.)
Another friend is disabled with a disabled son. They both work full time but make the minimum wage ($8/hr). Fortunately, he gets medical insurance through his work but she doesn’t. She can’t afford medical insurance or most medical care. They spend most of their money on housing even though they live in a 1 BR apartment in a transitional area. She opposes the bill because if she has to buy insurance, they will not be able to afford their rent. They’ve tried to find cheaper housing but they can’t live anywhere with stairs so their choices are limited. She already does without virtually all medical care but, to her, that’s better than doing without housing because of the nature of her son’s disabilities.
She has joined some tea party protests because she can’t afford insurance and a place to live. Since she has to make that choice (and neither party is proposing anything that would get her out of that bind), she would rather be able to decide for herself which one is better for her. She opposes the government making that choice for her. She was horrified at the way the protesters treated the man with Parkinson’s and I’m sure would be horrified at the way the protesters treated the members of Congress. She has been spit on by people who opposed the tea baggers and was proud that the protesters were more polite and civil than the people who were harassing them.
The law is a mixed bag. It will help some people, including some disabled people. But it will also hurt a lot of us. I wish that it weren’t hurting women and many poor and disabled people in order to help others. I am happy for those it will help but I wish there were more recognition of the harm it will cause to many.
Read: “Obama apology. Obama apology. Obama apology….”
Yes, I would prefer that this bill not pass than it be done on the backs of women. Yet again. Stop making excuses for this bastard. He is not our ally. He is not our friend. He will sacrifice women at every single turn, and he has proven it yet again. Just like every other Democrat. They don’t give a shit about women because YOU DON’T MAKE THEM GIVE A SHIT. You make excuses. You make apologies. You refuse to criticize.
Besides, what about this is “good” for anyone’s healthcare? That the single-payer possibility was killed–by Obama–before the debate even began? That this is nothing but a gift to big pharma and the insurance industry? That working people will actually face punishment for not giving their money to insurance companies? That insurance companies can continue jacking up premiums to the point that they trigger the “taxable income” provisions? The only thing “good” about this is it saved Obama’s political ass. That’s not something I care to devote my time to, thank you very much.