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…