Stop Abortion Coverage Ban

Stop Abortion Coverage Ban

---

The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women's access to abortion – making it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system. We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban! Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system. Bob Fertik Dear Activist, The House passed an anti-choice measure that would essentially eliminate insurance coverage for abortion in the new system. Help us fight back and stop the ban on women's insurance coverage for abortion. Add your name to our petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by 12 noon (EST) on Friday, November 13. Anti-choice politics shouldn't trump women's health in Congress. It's unacceptable. Yet that's what happened when the House passed the last-minute anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment to its health-reform bill. We cannot let this attack stand in the Senate. Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to save abortion coverage and ensure that the same ban is not included in the Senate's bill. I can't stress this strongly enough: we must win in the Senate to keep millions of women from losing their private insurance coverage for abortion in the new health-care system. A vote to ban insurance coverage for abortion in the new system will come down to the wire, so we must call on Majority Leader Reid to stand strong against this attack from the outset. We need to deliver our petitions to Majority Leader Reid by the end of the week before the bill is brought to the floor, so add your name by 12 noon (EST) on Friday, November 13. Here is what will happen if the Senate adopts the same Stupak-Pitts amendment that passed in the House bill: It will be virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private insurance plans cover abortion services. We must win in the Senate. That's why we need to fight back today. Stand up for women's access to abortion and sign our petition to Majority Leader Reid. Thank you for standing with us during this fight. My best, Nancy Keenan President, NARAL Pro-Choice America You are subscribed to Democrats.com Activist Alerts.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Unhealthy Trend: House Action On Abortion Showcases Power Of Bishops’ Lobby

November 10, 2009

There’s at least a possibility that health-care reform will be scuttled thanks to the machinations of a powerful church that is determined to use the power of government to foist its dogma on all of us.

When political pundits talk about the power of religious groups to affect public policy in Washington, most tend to focus on the Religious Right.

Indeed, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Religious Right groups flexed a lot of political muscle and won numerous victories on Capitol Hill.

But the Religious Right has an Achilles’ heel: Its leaders and activists are so closely identified with the Republican Party that when Democrats are in charge, these groups have a much more difficult time advancing their agenda.

That’s not the case with the nation’s other prominent religious lobby – the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Lobbyists representing the Catholic bishops are careful to work in both parties and as a result are often successful no matter which party is in charge.

Consider the recent flap over health-care reform. The bill passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday contains a stunning provision: It states that low-income women who receive tax credits to buy health insurance won’t be permitted to enroll in any plan that covers abortion.

This language goes far beyond measures we’ve seen in other bills that bar direct tax funding to support abortion. The net effect of this language, many analysts believe, will be to force insurance providers to drop abortion coverage.

Any insurers who cover the procedure, after all, will be in effect ineligible from participating in the insurance exchange the bill creates. Most insurance firms are going to want to be part of that system, since it represents a lucrative new pool of customers. To get in it, they’ll simply drop abortion coverage.

How did this restrictive language get in the bill? As National Public Radio pointed out, lobbyists for the Catholic bishops aggressively worked both sides of the political aisle in a bid to bring the bill into conformity with church doctrine. In addition, Catholic priests across the nation were ordered to sermonize about the issue during weekly services.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops actively lobbied for the amendment, offered by Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania,” reported NPR. “The Catholic Church, though opposed to abortion funding, has long advocated for universal health care as a fundamental human right and essential to the common good. Stupak was among 19 Democrats who in midsummer vowed to oppose any health overhaul plan that didn’t specifically prevent taxpayer money from being used for abortions.”

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told NPR he is “horrified” by what happened.

“What we saw over the weekend was an act of unparalleled arrogance on the part of church officials,” Lynn said. “Basically, they were claiming they would kill health care for the sick and the poor if the Democrats didn’t give them the votes to impose religious doctrine into law. It’s scandalous that this religious group has such extraordinary control over the fate of women’s lives in this country.”

I should point out that most American Catholics don’t support the position taken by the church hierarchy and its army of lobbyists. A recent poll taken by Catholics for Choice shows that most Catholics support abortion coverage in health care reform, especially in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormality.

Furthermore, 68 percent of Catholics say the church would be wrong to oppose the entire health-care reform plan merely because it includes coverage for abortion.

Efforts are under way to strip the language from the bill (which is on its way to the Senate), and religious leaders who oppose the bishops’ move are speaking out. Yesterday, four prominent leaders signed a joint letter opposing the Stupak language.

Others are mounting a lobbying counter-offensive on Capitol Hill.

How will this shake out?

It’s too early to tell, but there’s at least a possibility that health-care reform – a goal many in this country have sought since the days of Theodore Roosevelt – will be scuttled thanks to the machinations of a powerful church that is determined to use the power of government to foist its dogma on all of us.

Remember this the next time you see some right-winger on the television or in a newspaper whining that religious groups are shut out of the public debate.

By Rob Boston

STUPIFYING How bad is the Stupak amendment?

STUPIFYING

How bad is the Stupak amendment?

What the Stupak-Pitts Coathanger Amendment Does

by mcjoan

Share this on Twitter - What the Stupak-Pitts Coathanger Amendment Does

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:20:02 AM PST

Here's what it says:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

There's been a lot of debate around here about what that exactly means. Here's what it means. Millions of women will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Remember that, the legal part?

What's the harm, some say? It only makes sure that federal funding doesn't go to providing abortion, right? Wrong. Here's Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at American Progress.

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.

Once again, just like in the pre-Roe days, the wealthy will have access to abortion, those who can't scrape several hundred dollars together won't. Because of how the exchange is structured, most of people covered through it will be receiving credits or subsidies. Therefore, most of the participants will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Additionally, the reality, as Arons says, is that the insurers participating in the exchange won't offer it at all, and the question remains whether they'll continue to offer it for women in employer-based programs outside the exchange, or whether it would just be easier for administrative and overhead purposes to stop covering it at all. Right now, nearly 90 percent of private, employer-based plans cover abortion services. This legislation could result in many of those plans dropping it, to make administration of plans simpler and more cost-effective. We know how critical the bottom line is to them.

And take another look at those exclusions: "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." Even planned pregnancies are regularly terminated--legally--because of the health of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities. Forcing women to carry these pregnancies to term is dangerous and cruel. Forcing low- and moderate-income women to have to make hard financial decisions to try to come up with the money for the procedure is cruel. It's also diametrically opposed to the very principles of healthcare reform. This legislation is supposed to be freeing Americans from having to make horrible financial choices between basic necessities and medical care.

Consider this real-life example:

By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."

....

I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks. I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.

This is the most expansive restriction on access to abortion Congress has passed. It goes well beyond Hyde, which has never been codified and which only governs federal, public plans. It's particularly galling that it comes under the umbrella of healthcare "reform."

Remember the promises? Reform was about expanding choices, not allowing government to come between you and your doctor, no one will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it. Apparently being female is a preexisting condition that exempts us from the promises, too.

• ::
• 
  

Tags: Stupak-Pitts Amendment, abortion, healthcare reform (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Published on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 by The Nation

The Stupak Stupor

by Emily Douglas

We know that the House healthcare reform bill passed after an eleventh-hour compromise (you might say betrayal) on abortion access. We know the compromise, the Stupak-Pitts amendment, is bad. But do we know exactly how it's bad for women (and their partners)? Here's a quick primer on what the amendment actually means for any woman accessing healthcare through the newly-created health insurance exchange.

Over the summer, legislators struck an agreement on abortion funding in which private plans offered through the health insurance exchange couldn't use federal dollars to cover abortion care. They could, however, cover abortion care with funds from individuals' premiums, and the agreement, the Capps Amendment, required at least one plan in every region to offer abortion care, and at least one not to. As many observers predicted, the Capps Amendment didn't mollify anti-abortion crusaders, namely the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commands an outsize role in the debate over healthcare reform.

So what we ended up with was drastically worse. After the initial compromise fell apart, Rep. Bart Stupak introduced the eponymous amendment, under which any plan purchased with any federal subsidy cannot cover abortion services--even with private funds. Plus, the public plan won't cover abortion care. While plans participating in the health insurance exchange are legally permitted to offer a version of the plan that does cover abortion--enrollment limited to those who pay for the entire plan without any subsidy--it's unlikely plans will go the extra mile to offer that coverage, Planned Parenthood's Laurie Rubiner said this morning on the Brian Lehrer Show. That would be "awfully complex," Rubiner explained. Because the majority of Americans purchasing insurance through the exchange would be using affordability credits, the plan without abortion coverage will become the "standard plan." Rubiner also cited privacy concerns over purchasing abortion-inclusive coverage. The Wall Street Journal observed, "Insurers may be reluctant to [set up abortion-inclusive plans] because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents."

At Change.org, Jen Nedeau pointed out that even women who currently have employer-based insurance that does cover abortion care (and 87 percent of employer-based plans do) may ultimately be affected. "Since the plan for the uninsured is designed to open up to everyone over time, including large employers, it is likely that women will lose access to abortion coverage as part of any health insurance plan available for purchase," Nedeau explains.

In defending his amendment, Stupak made one misleading and one outright false claim. He argued that women could purchase "abortion riders" on top of their insurance, much like they might purchase a dental or vision rider. Such an abortion rider doesn't exist now, and the legislation does not provide for its creation. Rubiner pointed out that in states where private coverage of abortion care is outlawed, riders don't exist either. Besides, they defy logic: "Women would have to plan for their unplanned pregnancy," Rubiner added. "It's illogical to think they would look for a plan that includes abortion."

And for the falsehood: Stupak claimed that his amendment "goes no farther than Hyde," the amendment banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman's life. In fact, the amendment goes farther than Hyde in stipulating what kind of coverage a woman can purchase with private dollars. "It's the equivalent of arguing that women who receive abortions should not use public buses or highways to travel to the abortion clinic," Igor Volsky at Wonk Room points out.

In the Stupak amendment, the exceptions to the coverage ban read as follows: rape, 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." The Center for American Progress's Jessica Arons writes, "Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language." And in case you wonder what that leaves out entirely: "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."

Copyright 2009 The Nation

Emily Douglas is the web editor at The Nation. Formerly an editor at RH Reality Check, she has written on reproductive health, LGBT issues, women's rights and the law for The American Prospect, The Nation, RH Reality Check, and other publications. She was a spring 2007 intern at The Nation and graduated from Harvard College.

Let Bart Stupak Know What You are Thinking

HAPPENING

If you are having trouble viewing this e-Newsletter, click here.

Visit Website | Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Web Version

Stupak To Hold Escanaba Town Hall Meeting For answers to commonly asked questions and other information on health care reform, please click here. November 10, 2009 Dear Friends, I invite you to attend the upcoming town hall meeting I will be holding on November 11th to discuss current national issues. This meeting will provide an opportunity for you to directly tell me what is on your mind as well as allow me to provide you with an account of what is going on in Congress. Following are the details: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM (EST) Bay de Noc Community College Besse Center 2001 North Lincoln Rd Escanaba, MI [ map it ] Any change in the time of event will be announced by the local media. Again, please join your neighbors and me on November 11. I look forward to listening to your ideas and comments. Sincerely, Bart Stupak Member of Congress

Washington Office 2268 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225 4735 Fax: (202) 225 4744

Yet Rep. Bart Stupak carries out the agenda of The Family in Congress.

Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house he lives in

'I don’t know what you’re talking about, [The] Family and all this other stuff.'

By Ed Brayton 7/23/09 3:26 PM

Despite weeks of media attention paid to the now-infamous “C Street” house owned by The Family, a secretive Christian group, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak — who lives at the house near the U.S. Capitol — denied any knowledge of the nature of the mysterious Washington, D.C., rowhouse and any involvement with the organization that owns it and uses as a seat of influence on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (Creative Commons photo by Brian Rendel via Flickr)

During a conference call with reporters Thursday morning, Michigan Messenger asked Stupak, a Menominee Democrat, about the house where he has lived for many years and his connections to the shadowy organization that owns it. The longtime Upper Peninsula legislator claimed to have “no affiliation” with the group, which is known as The Family or The Fellowship.

“I don’t belong to any such group,” Stupak said. “I rent a room at a house in ‘C Street.’ I do not belong to any such group. I don’t know what you’re talking about, [The] Family and all this other stuff.”

The C Street house, a former convent, is still listed on official tax documents as a church but it functions largely as a boarding house, with six to eight members of the U.S. House and Senate living there at any given time. Current residents include Stupak, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).

The house has become the focus of much attention after the public admissions of adultery by Ensign and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. It has been widely reported that Coburn and other residents of the house knew of Ensign’s affair long before it became public and helped him negotiate his way through it. Sanford likewise mentioned in the press conference where he admitted his infidelity that he had been receiving spiritual counseling at the C Street house.

When asked if there were any ethical concerns created by living in a house inaccurately listed as a church in order to evade property taxes, Stupak replied: “I don’t own the building, I don’t know how the landlord has it listed. I pay rent for a room. I sleep there. I have a room.”

Jeff Sharlet, contributing editor at Harper’s magazine and the author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,” lived for a time at Ivanwald, another boarding house owned by the group in Arlington, Va., this one for younger men without political power.

Sharlet said that Stupak’s denial of any knowledge of The Family or its activities is false. “When I lived with The Family at Ivanwald, a house for younger men being groomed for leadership, I was told that Stupak was a regular visitor to the Cedars,” Sharlet said. The Cedars is yet another compound owned by The Family, one that hosts weekly prayer events led by former Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese.

Sharlet said that Stupak had much greater involvement with the group than he is admitting, noting that the congressman was “a Family-assigned mentor to one of my brothers at Ivanwald.” That Ivanwald resident, Sharlet said, “regularly left for what he and others described as mentoring sessions.”

Another reason to doubt Stupak’s denials, Sharlet said, is that members of the organization and those who live at the C Street house are sworn to secrecy about what goes on there, as fellow resident Zach Wamp admitted to the Knoxville News in the wake of the recent scandals. That makes such denials less credible, Sharlet said.

“The bottom line here is that Stupak is either being dishonest or confessing dangerous ignorance,” Sharlet said. “The house’s function has been public knowledge since the [Associated Press] wrote about it 7 years ago. Multiple mainstream media outlets have reported on the house’s role as in effect, a lobby in all but name, led by a man who is on video and audio record citing the leadership lessons of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.”

Sharlet’s book describes The Family as a kind of shadow multi-national government, operating in secret through small prayer groups called “cells” and modeled after the organization of mafia and terrorist groups. Doug Coe, the leader of the group, frequently refers to the leadership lessons of Hitler and the example of the mafia as a model for how the group operates.

How far-reaching is The Family’s influence? David Kuo, a high-ranking official in the Bush administration who oversaw the White House’s office of faith-based initiatives, wrote in a recent book: “The Fellowship’s reach into governments around the world is almost impossible to overstate or even grasp.”

When contacted for a reaction to Sharlet’s accusations and for follow-up questions about his involvement in the organization and his residency at C Street, Stupak’s spokesman, Nick Choate, replied: “The congressman will not have any further comment on the matter.”

Correction: This article originally listed Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania as a resident of the C street house, which has been widely reported elsewhere. But we have been informed by his spokesperson that the congressman does not reside at the C street house, nor has he ever resided there. We apologize for the error.

Michigan Chapter, Sierra Club Update, Early November 2009

		Michigan Chapter Update Early November 2009: Get Outside with Sierra Club's Groups; Ratepayers ask Consumers Energy to Give Them a Break; Re-combining DEQ and DNR - what's it mean?; Become an Evergreen Supporter of the Michigan Chapter! Get Outside this Fall and Winter! Michigan is home to some of the most beautiful places on earth, as Outing Leaders from Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Groups can tell from first hand experience! You can enjoy Michigan's fall and winter more by getting outside with people who know some of the best kept secrets about our state's gorgeous outdoors! Find out about hikes, cross-country skiing adventures, and canoe trips, just to name a few! Check back regularly as the Outings and Events calendar is updated with new exciting outings and programs. Want to find out more? Contact your local Group Outing leader here or Chapter Outings Chair Lorne Beatty. Ratepayers Tell Consumers Energy to Give Us a Break! Consumers Energy's parent company CMS announced their profits last week, but the company continues pushing for a new, unneeded $2.6 billion coal plant, even though customers are using less electricity. More than 100 coal plants have been cancelled nationwide since 2002, mainly because of financial risks, but under Michigan law ratepayers will pay for a new power plant, not shareholders. Sierra Club joined with faith and community groups to call for CMS to invest in jobs and a clean energy future for Michigan instead of coal. "Michigan’s working families have been hit hard by this recession and can’t afford to pick up the tab for an expensive and dirty coal-fired power plant," said Patty Gillis from Voices for Earth Justice. "We need a break, and CMS Energy should put more of those earnings into energy efficiency to help businesses and homes cut electric bills and pollution at the same time." The full story is here. Find out how you can get involved in moving Michigan Beyond Coal -- it will be good for your family, Michigan's future and everyone's pocketbooks! Re-combining DEQ and DNR - what's it mean? Big changes are coming on January 17. Almost a decade and a half after they were split, Governor Granholm has ordered the recombination of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources. With budget woes and a plan to reduce the total number of state departments announced early this year, the recombination is not a surprise, but critical details are still up in the air. A transition team is to complete its recommendations by December 23 on what the new Department of Natural Resources and Environment will look like, but Sierra Club isn't waiting to weigh in. Sierra Club is working with environmental and conservation groups to demand protection of the interests of all Michiganders by assuring an emphasis on public health and sustaining our state's tremendous natural resources as these changes occur. Let us know your thoughts, and sign up to keep informed about the fast moving changes by sending an email to michigan.chapter@sierraclub.org. Become an Evergreen Supporter of the Michigan Chapter! Be part of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter's Evergreen program by supporting the issues you care most about all year long: Keeping our Great Lakes healthy; building a clean energy future; protecting our public forests and wild heritage; and involving more people in democracy. Find out more about how you can be part of the Michigan Chapter Evergreen program here or contact Jan O'Connell with your questions! Support the Michigan Chapter's work by clicking here! Not a Sierra Club member yet? Join here!

Michigan Chapter | 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906 | P:(517) 484-2372 | Contact Us