The New York Times, featuring Nancy Keenan looks at the generational divide on choice and how it affects issues like health-care reform:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29stolberg.html?_r=1
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban!
Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban!
By now you’ve heard that the U.S. House has adopted the most restrictive abortion language since before Roe v. Wade. This ban represents a radical departure from the status quo because it would block women’s access to abortion coverage in the new health system. Anti-Choice Legislators in the Senate have said they will introduce similar language health care debate.
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Please join the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!
What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
By now you’ve heard that the U.S. House has adopted the most restrictive abortion language since before Roe v. Wade. This ban represents a radical departure from the status quo because it would block women’s access to abortion coverage in the new health system. Anti-Choice Legislators in the Senate have said they will introduce similar language health care debate.
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Please join the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!
What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
NARAL Pro-Choice America Statement on Senate Health-Care Bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she is encouraged that the Senate bill does not include the extreme new anti-choice restrictions adopted by the U.S. House. However, the legislation includes a compromise that continues existing laws that unfairly single out abortion care, including a ban on federal funding.
On Monday, Keenan delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the egregious Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill out of the Senate version. Keenan vowed to continue to mobilize her organization’s members to fight anti-choice senators’ plans to push additional anti-choice attacks as the legislation moves forward.
“America’s pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly,” Keenan said. “Our goal is to ensure that women do not lose ground in the new health-care system and that attempts to expand existing restrictions on abortion are defeated. Some anti-choice politicians, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will follow Rep. Bart Stupak’s example and inject anti-abortion politics into health reform. However, we believe that senators understand that the Stupak amendment in the House bill goes far beyond the status quo and prohibits women from using their own money to buy the insurance coverage they want in the new system. Our activists will continue to remind senators that we’re expecting cooler heads to prevail at this stage of the process and that means the Stupak language is not an option.”
In addition to the petition delivery, the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks by its state affiliates. As a result of strong member support, the organization now is conducting this mobilization in 20 states.
On Monday, Keenan delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the egregious Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill out of the Senate version. Keenan vowed to continue to mobilize her organization’s members to fight anti-choice senators’ plans to push additional anti-choice attacks as the legislation moves forward.
“America’s pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly,” Keenan said. “Our goal is to ensure that women do not lose ground in the new health-care system and that attempts to expand existing restrictions on abortion are defeated. Some anti-choice politicians, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will follow Rep. Bart Stupak’s example and inject anti-abortion politics into health reform. However, we believe that senators understand that the Stupak amendment in the House bill goes far beyond the status quo and prohibits women from using their own money to buy the insurance coverage they want in the new system. Our activists will continue to remind senators that we’re expecting cooler heads to prevail at this stage of the process and that means the Stupak language is not an option.”
In addition to the petition delivery, the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks by its state affiliates. As a result of strong member support, the organization now is conducting this mobilization in 20 states.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Stupak/Pitts 101
You’ve heard all about the Stupak/Pitts amendment, maybe read a few of the articles in last week’s CLN, but what exactly are its implications? Here are the basics:
· It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange.
· It includes only extremely narrow exceptions including 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.”
· Exceptions not included: 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 others.
· It allows women to purchase a useless abortion “rider” which Stupak compares to purchasing eye or dental insurance. Saying women should purchase specific coverage for abortion is the same as asking women to plan for an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it’s really that ironic.
When President Obama first started lobbying for healthcare reform, his platform was that people could keep the coverage they already had. This amendment endangers abortion coverage that women already have which goes directly against the goal of “reform”. Obama explains, “I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” The Stupak/Pitts amendment affectively makes members of congress choose between abortion coverage and healthcare reform. Legislators are being told that they can either vote to effectively ban abortion, or they can block health care reform and potentially harm millions of Americans.
And so the Senate Healthcare Saga Begins…
There’s already talk of anti-abortion language a la Stupak/Pitts in the Senate debate and therefore already strong opposition against such restrictions. Minnesota’s own Klobuchar and Franken have already spoken out against a senate version of this anti-choice amendment. Al Franken quotes "I am not happy with it. I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
Some senators are saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill with this language. Others are speaking out saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill without this language. With this tension possibly even stronger and more palpable than its counterpart in the House, it’s certain that abortion rights and women’s health will continue to be a bargaining chip in the Senate healthcare debate. Stay tuned…
· It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange.
· It includes only extremely narrow exceptions including 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.”
· Exceptions not included: 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 others.
· It allows women to purchase a useless abortion “rider” which Stupak compares to purchasing eye or dental insurance. Saying women should purchase specific coverage for abortion is the same as asking women to plan for an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it’s really that ironic.
When President Obama first started lobbying for healthcare reform, his platform was that people could keep the coverage they already had. This amendment endangers abortion coverage that women already have which goes directly against the goal of “reform”. Obama explains, “I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” The Stupak/Pitts amendment affectively makes members of congress choose between abortion coverage and healthcare reform. Legislators are being told that they can either vote to effectively ban abortion, or they can block health care reform and potentially harm millions of Americans.
And so the Senate Healthcare Saga Begins…
There’s already talk of anti-abortion language a la Stupak/Pitts in the Senate debate and therefore already strong opposition against such restrictions. Minnesota’s own Klobuchar and Franken have already spoken out against a senate version of this anti-choice amendment. Al Franken quotes "I am not happy with it. I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
Some senators are saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill with this language. Others are speaking out saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill without this language. With this tension possibly even stronger and more palpable than its counterpart in the House, it’s certain that abortion rights and women’s health will continue to be a bargaining chip in the Senate healthcare debate. Stay tuned…
Today is your day to give the gift of choice!
Through a new initiative for non-profits in Minnesota, any gift made online on Tuesday, November 17 through http://www.razoo.com/story/Naral-Pro-Choice-Minnesota-Foundation will be matched with a portion of a $500,000 grant.
Want to stretch your donation dollars? Today is the day to maximize your money and help us fight for the future of reproductive freedom in Minnesota.
I urge you to make a tax-deductible, year-end gift to NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation TODAY. All donations given between 8 a.m. Tuesday, November 17, and 8 a.m. Wednesday, November 18, are eligible.
Your gift will make reproductive freedom a reality.
Thank you,
Linnea House
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation
Want to stretch your donation dollars? Today is the day to maximize your money and help us fight for the future of reproductive freedom in Minnesota.
I urge you to make a tax-deductible, year-end gift to NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation TODAY. All donations given between 8 a.m. Tuesday, November 17, and 8 a.m. Wednesday, November 18, are eligible.
Your gift will make reproductive freedom a reality.
Thank you,
Linnea House
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation
Monday, November 16, 2009
Support Choice on Nov 17th!
Can you believe how ruthless the anti-choice movement is?The recent efforts to use the Health Reform bill as a de facto ban on insurance coverage for abortion procedures for all women, regardless of whether they receive public subsidies or purchase their own insurance, is this year’s shining example.
Year after year, we’ve seen anti-choice groups grow stronger, always chipping away at women’s right to choose.
They put up fake “crisis pregnancy centers” next to legitimate women’s health clinics.
They harass women entering those legitimate clinics.
They recruit young women who were born long after Roe vs. Wade brought abortion out of the back alley and into the doctor’s office.
For over 40 years, the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation has been fighting right back. The founders of this organization first came together in 1966 to organize for the legal right to abortion in Minnesota. Their own personal experiences with the tragic effects of illegal abortion led this group of courageous women to the conviction that all women should have access to safe abortions.
And now, so many years later, women still must run the gauntlet of misinformation, intimidation, and harassment just to seek the health care they have a supposed legal right to seek.
It starts at a young age – many Minnesota teens start out without all the facts when they are given an abstinence-only sex education. Those who do seek out birth control can be told “no” by doctors or pharmacists who have the legal right to deny access to birth control based on their own personal beliefs.
And should a woman find herself facing an unplanned pregnancy, she might first find herself in a fake clinic that promised to explain her options, but didn’t include the option of abortion. A fake clinic that receives state family planning money because of the so-called “Positive Alternatives Act” passed by our state legislature in 2005.
If she does find her way to a legitimate clinic, she will almost certainly face picketers that will block her car, or physically block her body. They’ll shout at her or try to hand her flyers asking her not to kill her baby.
No matter how you look at it, true reproductive freedom remains a dream, but not a reality.
You can help counter the misinformation and harassment. You can help women safely and legally get the health care they need. You can help educate the next generation of activists to continue this fight that NARAL’s founders took up so many years ago.
When you make a gift to the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation, you help fund our clinic escort services for local clinics. You ensure that an understanding face greets a woman in the parking lot of her clinic to guide her safely through the protesters.
When you support the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation, you help disseminate accurate information about contraception and abortion across the state.
When you donate today, you can rest assured that we’ll put it to use tomorrow in organizing Minnesota’s young adults to carry on this fight. You make it possible for the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation to take the story of this long battle to college students who have no memory of the ways so many women lost so much to give them these rights they have today.
The key component is YOU. Please, make a generous donation to support this work today. Let’s make true reproductive freedom a reality.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Stop Abortion Coverage Ban!
Call on Senate Leader Reid: 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.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes 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.
The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women’s access to abortion.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes 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.
Senators Klobuchar and Franken say no to abortion restrictions!
After the passage of the health care bill in the US House that includes the heinous Stupak Amendment the health care debate moves into the US Senate. With many mixed messages about similar language being introduced in the Senate version or whether or not there will be votes to pass a bill with or without language restricting abortion access, Minnesotan’s can are looking at their Senators and wondering where the stand in this debate. Well the wait is over and we know where they stand.
Senator Klobuchar is against the Stupak language: "I prefer the Senate version because we basically were careful that we were not going to restrict that type of coverage — that an individual using their private money would be able to buy [a plan that includes abortion coverage]. . . I think that was the right way to go. Hopefully we will be able to prevail."
And Minnesota’s junior senator, the replacement to anti-choice Sen. Coleman, Al Franken is not in favor of the House language: "I am not happy with it. . . I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
So hats off to Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar!!! Please take this time to either call or e-mail both of our pro-choice Senators and thank them and urge them to continue to stand up for women.
Senator Franken:
DC Phone: 202-224-5641
MN Phone: 651-221-1016
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov
Senator Klobuchar:
MN Phone: 612-727-5220
DC Phone: 202-224-3244
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
E-mail: http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Senator Klobuchar is against the Stupak language: "I prefer the Senate version because we basically were careful that we were not going to restrict that type of coverage — that an individual using their private money would be able to buy [a plan that includes abortion coverage]. . . I think that was the right way to go. Hopefully we will be able to prevail."
And Minnesota’s junior senator, the replacement to anti-choice Sen. Coleman, Al Franken is not in favor of the House language: "I am not happy with it. . . I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
So hats off to Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar!!! Please take this time to either call or e-mail both of our pro-choice Senators and thank them and urge them to continue to stand up for women.
Senator Franken:
DC Phone: 202-224-5641
MN Phone: 651-221-1016
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov
Senator Klobuchar:
MN Phone: 612-727-5220
DC Phone: 202-224-3244
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
E-mail: http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Monday, November 9, 2009
Comprehensive Healthcare for All! (unless you’re a woman)
When Nancy Pelosi introduced House Bill 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act, there was general excitement in the pro-choice community at the thought of democratic, pro-woman healthcare legislation. There was also a healthy dose of fear that women’s healthcare would become the bargaining chip in passing this bill.
And it became exactly that. To avoid a voting delay on this historical healthcare legislation and under pressure from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-choice Democrats in the House, Speaker Pelosi and the Rules Committee caved and allowed abortion opponents to offer the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the healthcare bill. If this amendment passed, it would impose severe restrictions on abortions through not only the proposed “government run healthcare” but through private insurance plans as well.
Despite a monumental “Call Your Representative” campaign against this amendment, the pro-choice community and women everywhere suffered a significant loss as this amendment passed with a vote of 240-194. This passage included 64 democrats who sold women out by voting in favor of this amendment. Shortly after this vote, the entire House healthcare bill passed with a vote of 220-215.
The excitement that should have erupted from Democrats everywhere was severely dampened by the stripping of abortion coverage through the Stupak amendment. Because of this archaic amendment, not only is abortion coverage stripped from the “public option” but also from any private insurance company participating in the highly-competitive “insurance exchange” that was created. It effectively blocks women from using their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—which is a radical departure from the status quo in the current private-insurance market, as more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans currently cover abortion services.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a statement labeling the passage of the Stupak amendment “an outrageous blow to women's freedom and privacy.” Planned Parenthood also chimed in pointing out that this overreaching amendment “undermin[es] the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money.” This is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde amendment. Women can’t afford to have their healthcare placed on the back burner of our nation’s healthcare reform conversation.
Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota, states “this was a surprise attack and the resulting vote is stunning and unacceptable. The Stupak amendment is the biggest restriction on women’s access to abortion we’ve seen in more than 30 years. The vote on this amendment shows yet again why we must continue to elect pro-choice officials, and continue to stand up for the reproductive rights of all women.”
We will be sure to keep you all in the loop on our next steps we all need to take to ensure that this outrageous amendment is stripped from the entire health care reform bill. Now is the time to continue to Raise Your Voice for Choice!
And it became exactly that. To avoid a voting delay on this historical healthcare legislation and under pressure from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-choice Democrats in the House, Speaker Pelosi and the Rules Committee caved and allowed abortion opponents to offer the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the healthcare bill. If this amendment passed, it would impose severe restrictions on abortions through not only the proposed “government run healthcare” but through private insurance plans as well.
Despite a monumental “Call Your Representative” campaign against this amendment, the pro-choice community and women everywhere suffered a significant loss as this amendment passed with a vote of 240-194. This passage included 64 democrats who sold women out by voting in favor of this amendment. Shortly after this vote, the entire House healthcare bill passed with a vote of 220-215.
The excitement that should have erupted from Democrats everywhere was severely dampened by the stripping of abortion coverage through the Stupak amendment. Because of this archaic amendment, not only is abortion coverage stripped from the “public option” but also from any private insurance company participating in the highly-competitive “insurance exchange” that was created. It effectively blocks women from using their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—which is a radical departure from the status quo in the current private-insurance market, as more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans currently cover abortion services.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a statement labeling the passage of the Stupak amendment “an outrageous blow to women's freedom and privacy.” Planned Parenthood also chimed in pointing out that this overreaching amendment “undermin[es] the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money.” This is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde amendment. Women can’t afford to have their healthcare placed on the back burner of our nation’s healthcare reform conversation.
Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota, states “this was a surprise attack and the resulting vote is stunning and unacceptable. The Stupak amendment is the biggest restriction on women’s access to abortion we’ve seen in more than 30 years. The vote on this amendment shows yet again why we must continue to elect pro-choice officials, and continue to stand up for the reproductive rights of all women.”
We will be sure to keep you all in the loop on our next steps we all need to take to ensure that this outrageous amendment is stripped from the entire health care reform bill. Now is the time to continue to Raise Your Voice for Choice!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Anti-choice amendment passes.
House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics,
No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called House passage of a stunning last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an outrageous blow to women’s freedom and privacy—and she vowed to fight to remove this provision as the process goes to the Senate.
The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), was adopted late tonight by a margin of 240-194.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it 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.
“This vote is a reminder to America’s pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies,” Keenan said. “It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women’s health and privacy, but that’s exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman’s right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That’s why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate.”
Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion “rider” that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:
· The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
· Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
###
No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called House passage of a stunning last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an outrageous blow to women’s freedom and privacy—and she vowed to fight to remove this provision as the process goes to the Senate.
The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), was adopted late tonight by a margin of 240-194.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it 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.
“This vote is a reminder to America’s pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies,” Keenan said. “It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women’s health and privacy, but that’s exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman’s right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That’s why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate.”
Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion “rider” that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:
· The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
· Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
###
House Adopts Anti-Choice Amendment to Health-Care Reform
The House accepted the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health-care reform bill by a vote of 240-194. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Urgent!- Prevent major ANTI-CHOICE amendment!
While you were sleeping Pelosi meet with Catholic Bishops reps andanti-choice Democratic members of Congress to strike a deal on thehealth care bill that will bring an outrageous attack on abortionaccess to the floor TODAY. Call NOW and tell your rep to vote no on theStupak Amendment 202-224-3121!
Then follow the link and take the e-mail action to block this major threat to womens reproductive rights!
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3985
For more details, check out this article but CALL and E-MAIL NOW:
House opens debate on health care bill
A vote is expected today
By DAVID ESPO and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVARASSOCIATED PRESS
Nov. 7, 2009, 8:28AM
/* // no ads
WASHINGTON — The House has opened debate on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul that would extend insurance to tens of millions of Americans and enact dramatic changes to the country’s medical system.
In the opening moments of debate, Democrats hailed the legislation as an advance for the nation’s social fabric and a moral and economic imperative.
Republicans said it would be a government takeover of the health care system that would damage the economy and erode the doctor-patient relationship.
The vote planned for late Saturday was expected to be tight. Democratic leaders hoped a late-morning visit by Obama to Capitol Hill would push it over the edge.
The bill is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Under the late-night arrangement covering abortion, Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were given an opportunity to try and insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Those proposals are likely to pass, assuming Republican abortion opponents vote for them.
The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority.
The plan emerged from hours of meetings presided over by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and involving lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue and officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops. It effectively ended a standoff that dated to last summer, when the issue arose in one of three committees that debated the legislation.
There was no immediate reaction from prominent abortion rights supporters called to the late-night negotiations in the Capitol.
Separately, Pelosi and the leadership sought to ease concerns among Hispanic holdouts on the legislation.
“We're very close” to having enough votes to prevail, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a midday assessment, although he cautioned at the time that a scheduled Saturday vote could slip by a day or two and sought to pin the blame on possible Republican delaying tactics.
“Nice try, Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes,” shot back Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.
Hours later, Democrats were still trying to get them.
In a midnight-hour appearance before the House Rules Committee, Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
Separately, he said that he and his allies wanted a similar ban on coverage under comprehensive policies offered by private insurers in a federally regulated exchange that would be created. Individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion coverage as long as they used their own money, and not federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable.
“We are not writing a new federal abortion policy,” he said, adding that his intent was to transplant into the health insurance bill restrictions that apply to other federal programs.
Ellsworth added, “From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality.”
Stupak also said attempts during the evening to reach a compromise that both sides could support had ultimately collapsed.
“I think we have a fundamental disagreement in this issue. That's a reality,” California Rep. Henry Waxman, a supporter of abortion rights, said after hours of closed-door talks on the issue.
Bypassing bipartisanship
In a struggle that combined the fate of Obama's signature policy initiative and a 2010 campaign issue, bipartisanship was not an option.
GOP leaders boasted that all 177 House Republicans stood ready to oppose the $1.2 trillion bill, which would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured or those without employer-provided coverage could purchase it.
Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation and the basis for the Republican claim that Democrats were planning a government takeover of the insurance industry.
Democrats said their bill was designed to spread coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and restrain the growth of health care spending nationally. The Congressional Budget Office said that if enacted, the measure would extend coverage to 96 percent of all eligible Americans within 10 years.
Obama and others in his administration spent part of the day lobbying intensely for its passage.
Rep. Jason Altmire, a second-term Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said he received calls during the day from the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message was “this is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,” he said.
Altmire added his callers emphasized the legislation would change once it left the House, but if it's defeated now the drive to enact sweeping changes would be over for the foreseeable future. He said he remained undecided on his vote.
Several Democrats have already announced their opposition, most of them moderate to conservative members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition.
Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote.
The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains “a work in progress,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a midday meeting in Pelosi's office.
As drafted, the legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created — a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.
One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.
Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.
Then follow the link and take the e-mail action to block this major threat to womens reproductive rights!
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3985
For more details, check out this article but CALL and E-MAIL NOW:
House opens debate on health care bill
A vote is expected today
By DAVID ESPO and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVARASSOCIATED PRESS
Nov. 7, 2009, 8:28AM
/* // no ads
WASHINGTON — The House has opened debate on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul that would extend insurance to tens of millions of Americans and enact dramatic changes to the country’s medical system.
In the opening moments of debate, Democrats hailed the legislation as an advance for the nation’s social fabric and a moral and economic imperative.
Republicans said it would be a government takeover of the health care system that would damage the economy and erode the doctor-patient relationship.
The vote planned for late Saturday was expected to be tight. Democratic leaders hoped a late-morning visit by Obama to Capitol Hill would push it over the edge.
The bill is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Under the late-night arrangement covering abortion, Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were given an opportunity to try and insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Those proposals are likely to pass, assuming Republican abortion opponents vote for them.
The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority.
The plan emerged from hours of meetings presided over by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and involving lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue and officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops. It effectively ended a standoff that dated to last summer, when the issue arose in one of three committees that debated the legislation.
There was no immediate reaction from prominent abortion rights supporters called to the late-night negotiations in the Capitol.
Separately, Pelosi and the leadership sought to ease concerns among Hispanic holdouts on the legislation.
“We're very close” to having enough votes to prevail, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a midday assessment, although he cautioned at the time that a scheduled Saturday vote could slip by a day or two and sought to pin the blame on possible Republican delaying tactics.
“Nice try, Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes,” shot back Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.
Hours later, Democrats were still trying to get them.
In a midnight-hour appearance before the House Rules Committee, Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
Separately, he said that he and his allies wanted a similar ban on coverage under comprehensive policies offered by private insurers in a federally regulated exchange that would be created. Individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion coverage as long as they used their own money, and not federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable.
“We are not writing a new federal abortion policy,” he said, adding that his intent was to transplant into the health insurance bill restrictions that apply to other federal programs.
Ellsworth added, “From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality.”
Stupak also said attempts during the evening to reach a compromise that both sides could support had ultimately collapsed.
“I think we have a fundamental disagreement in this issue. That's a reality,” California Rep. Henry Waxman, a supporter of abortion rights, said after hours of closed-door talks on the issue.
Bypassing bipartisanship
In a struggle that combined the fate of Obama's signature policy initiative and a 2010 campaign issue, bipartisanship was not an option.
GOP leaders boasted that all 177 House Republicans stood ready to oppose the $1.2 trillion bill, which would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured or those without employer-provided coverage could purchase it.
Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation and the basis for the Republican claim that Democrats were planning a government takeover of the insurance industry.
Democrats said their bill was designed to spread coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and restrain the growth of health care spending nationally. The Congressional Budget Office said that if enacted, the measure would extend coverage to 96 percent of all eligible Americans within 10 years.
Obama and others in his administration spent part of the day lobbying intensely for its passage.
Rep. Jason Altmire, a second-term Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said he received calls during the day from the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message was “this is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,” he said.
Altmire added his callers emphasized the legislation would change once it left the House, but if it's defeated now the drive to enact sweeping changes would be over for the foreseeable future. He said he remained undecided on his vote.
Several Democrats have already announced their opposition, most of them moderate to conservative members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition.
Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote.
The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains “a work in progress,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a midday meeting in Pelosi's office.
As drafted, the legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created — a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.
One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.
Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
U.S. leads in infant mortality rates
A CDC report finds that a higher rate of premature births is the reason the U.S. has a higher rate of infant mortality than most European countries. The report cites maternal obesity and smoking, too-early induced labor and cesarean sections, fertility treatments, and low-income women's lack of access to quality prenatal care as the driving forces behind high premature birth rates in the U.S.
During the health care debate women’s reproductive health has been used as a political football. The simple fact is that pro-choice groups have continually pushed to ensure women’s reproductive health care is standard health care while anti-choice organizations have attempted repeatedly to block any reform if abortion is covered. Without meaningful health care reform which can aid low-income women, address health issues that affect women, and put an end to treating cesarean sections as pre-existing conditions we cannot help reverse the infant mortality rate in the US.
We need to ensure every wanted pregnancy is cared for all the way to a healthy delivery and the mother and child have access to health care so they can both be healthy and strong. Meaningful health care reform reflects a society that truly respects and values life.
During the health care debate women’s reproductive health has been used as a political football. The simple fact is that pro-choice groups have continually pushed to ensure women’s reproductive health care is standard health care while anti-choice organizations have attempted repeatedly to block any reform if abortion is covered. Without meaningful health care reform which can aid low-income women, address health issues that affect women, and put an end to treating cesarean sections as pre-existing conditions we cannot help reverse the infant mortality rate in the US.
We need to ensure every wanted pregnancy is cared for all the way to a healthy delivery and the mother and child have access to health care so they can both be healthy and strong. Meaningful health care reform reflects a society that truly respects and values life.
Healthcare Reform: Battle of the Sexes
Health insurance premiums for Minnesota working families have skyrocketed, increasing 74 percent from 2000 to 2007, and this is certainly not unlike premiums in other states around the U.S. This statistic alone is enough to make most people agree that we need healthcare reform. NOW. The problem is clearly not about whether or not there’s a problem; it’s agreeing on a solution.
Enter women’s healthcare as a tactical battleground. “…opponents are increasingly getting desperate, and looking for ways to create general fear and paranoia about health care reform, which means that gender and sex are becoming a bigger part of the noise.” RH Reality Check’s "Reality Cast" is a good place to start when trying to understand of healthcare reform through the lens of women’s health.
The truth? Healthcare reform is turning into a battle of the sexes. In the absence of health reform, more and more women and families will lose their health insurance, with an estimated 67,750 Minnesota residents losing coverage between 2008 and 2010. An opinion piece in The Nation Magazine explores the sad fact that much of the current healthcare policy being proposed “leav[es] essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about [STIs], and…the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover.” This is unacceptable.
Even Michelle Obama is defining healthcare reform as a woman's issue. Women in Minnesota (and everywhere) need healthcare reform. The National Women’s Law Center does a great job highlighting the reasons women need to make healthcare reform their issue. The Kaiser Family Foundation also provides us with a to-the-point factsheet on women’s health and supports our need for all women to have comprehensive insurance coverage.
Bottom line: read the articles, learn the facts, and stand up for healthcare reform that provides the healthcare women need. Healthcare reform is a women’s issue.
Enter women’s healthcare as a tactical battleground. “…opponents are increasingly getting desperate, and looking for ways to create general fear and paranoia about health care reform, which means that gender and sex are becoming a bigger part of the noise.” RH Reality Check’s "Reality Cast" is a good place to start when trying to understand of healthcare reform through the lens of women’s health.
The truth? Healthcare reform is turning into a battle of the sexes. In the absence of health reform, more and more women and families will lose their health insurance, with an estimated 67,750 Minnesota residents losing coverage between 2008 and 2010. An opinion piece in The Nation Magazine explores the sad fact that much of the current healthcare policy being proposed “leav[es] essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about [STIs], and…the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover.” This is unacceptable.
Even Michelle Obama is defining healthcare reform as a woman's issue. Women in Minnesota (and everywhere) need healthcare reform. The National Women’s Law Center does a great job highlighting the reasons women need to make healthcare reform their issue. The Kaiser Family Foundation also provides us with a to-the-point factsheet on women’s health and supports our need for all women to have comprehensive insurance coverage.
Bottom line: read the articles, learn the facts, and stand up for healthcare reform that provides the healthcare women need. Healthcare reform is a women’s issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
