Stupak Amendment goes too far
By Tania Cervantes
The Guardsman
While changes in the current health care system are imperative, the proposed health care reform should not limit women’s access to abortion coverage.
In 1973, Roe vs. Wade opened the gate to legalized abortions and created safe conditions for women who otherwise sought dangerous back alley procedures. Today the Stupak Amendment in the House health care legislation may negatively affect women by restricting abortion coverage.
Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Rep. Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania, who back the amendment, derive their stands from the Hyde Amendment that passed in 1973, which stipulates that no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions.
Stupak’s Amendment is a stricter version of the Hyde Amendment because it bans federal funding for abortion. Low-income women under the public-option would not receive this coverage.
It also restricts any insurance company acting on behalf of the Health Insurance Exchange from providing abortion coverage if it serves subsidized clients. The exchange states that anybody who doesn’t like their insurance can revert to their former insurance company.
In such cases, women would either have to purchase and pay a monthly premium for a supplemental abortion coverage or pay in full for the procedure.
Nationwide health centers may charge $350 to $900 for an abortion in the first trimester, according to Planned Parenthood.
If a woman pays a monthly premium for insurance, there is no reason she should have to pay extra for abortion coverage. It is also unrealistic to think a monthly procedure would be necessary.
Under the current health care system federal subsidies cannot pay for an abortion. Health insurance companies, however, may offer such coverage without requiring their clients to make an extra payment. Even those covered by Medicaid can receive an abortion with the use of donations or other private funds.
Supporters of the Stupak Amendment claim their primary interest is to ensure federal funding is not used to pay for abortions, even though the Hyde Amendment already prevents this from happening. The Stupak amendment goes too far by denying insurance companies in the Health Insurance Exchange from offering abortion coverage.
Stupak supporters have extended Hyde’s reach. In doing so, they severely jeopardize a woman’s access to a service she may need by taking away the care she already receives.
Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California proposed that the new Health Insurance Exchange keep federal funds strictly separate from privately generated funds that might be used to pay for abortion services. Her proposal complies with the Hyde Amendment while not restricting a woman’s access to abortion care.
Capps wrote an editorial outlining her proposal in the Dec. 7, 2009 issue of BusinessWeek, stating that many Catholic hospitals are currently the recipients of federal funds and receive taxpayer dollars to help care for the sick. These hospitals are obligated to divide these government funds which are designated solely to provide health care from their private funds which are to be used only for religious activities. There is no reason why insurance companies differentiate funds in the same way.
Health care reform should not serve as a battleground for the control of women’s reproductive lives.