The flashiest health care controversy this weekend involved what's now known as the "Stupak" language, which was added to the House health care bill ostensibly to prevent pro-life Democrats from abandoning ship. The House leadership gulped it down as if it were a barium swallow. The amendment restricts private insurers participating in the exchange from offering abortion coverage as part of their policies. They can still offer add-on abortion-only coverage, but the subsidies that the health care bill provides couldn't be tapped.
The capitulation outraged pro-choice women and the left. Women don't often anticipate that they're going to get abortions, so they're not likely to buy the coverage in advance unless it is part of the whole package. That is, not coincidentally, why Stupak liked the deal. Pro-lifers didn't think it went far enough, but pro-choicers believe that it effectively deprives women most vulnerable to rape, incest or unwanted pregnancies -- younger women, poorer women -- of reproductive health care.
In a sense, the rapidity with which the Democratic leadership caved tells us two things about the larger abortion debate: it is increasingly being fought on a territory that is hospitable to pro-lifers -- and -- that the Democratic leadership believes that it can essentially take the support of women's rights activists for granted. The balance was this: do we lose X number of votes because we don't include the language?
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi today, 40 House pro-choicers insisted they would not support the product of the House and Senate conference if it included the Stupak language, calling it "an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled."
Notably, the White House refused to divulge the president's position on the language. By not divulging the president's position, the White House effectively divulged the president's position: he doesn't like the language, but he wouldn't want to sacrifice the bill.
Some Democrats believe that the Stupak language can be repealed at a later date -- but that's hard to imagine in the current political atmosphere.
In a related event, Democrats held a conference call with Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz today to keep the pressure on the women's angle, pointing to video of Republicans appearing to shout down female lawmakers on the floor of Congress.
How expensive is an abortion if a woman has to pay for it herself? Have uncovered
abortions caused many medical bankruptcies?
At least $200,000.
No offense but you didn't just pull that number out of the air did you? How about a link to something?
"The cost of an abortion depends on the stage of pregnancy and which clinic is providing services. First trimester procedures run about $500-1000. Second trimester procedures cost $600-10,000."
Source: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm, numbers for Washington state.
And that would make it far too expensive for most lower income women. And yes, without insurance medical bankruptcies are certain from this.
And if they hadn't done this, then they would have been taking the support of pro-life Democrats for granted.
Like Megan, I'm honestly amazed that women's rights activists haven't seen this coming for a year or more. There's been a solid majority in the House for the Hyde Amendment and for not spending federal funds on abortion for years, and there was after the 2008 elections.
What, they actually believe that the law may mean that people might lose coverage that they already have, or that their existing coverage might change? That crowding out might mean that almost all health insurance available will be the kind that conforms to this federal regulation, instead of insurers being free to offer plans that do or don't cover abortion, as they did before? But how could it be "an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled" if we trust President Obama's assurances that no one will lose coverage that they already have? If you believe that, then the bill can't actually make anyone lose access or coverage that they'd otherwise have, it just means that people won't be gaining access that they could without the provision.
Or perhaps those women's rights groups realize (or realized all along) that those Republican critiques of the bill were accurate, but they thought that they'd always be the ones in charge deciding what the federal insurance would cover and would not.
You want federally-subsidized health insurance? Then be prepared for the government to decide what's covered and what's not by those subsidies.
Hey Kool-Aid!
We already get subsidies from the federal government for health insurance. It's a partially tax deductible expense for employers.
And the Republican critiques? When they weren't inventing "death panels" or "killing grandma", it was the "government run healthcare" fallacy.
This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to assuage a minority in Congress and a minority of voters (a classic Democratic Party flaw).