Not My Tax Dollars!

Rep. Lois Capps Refutes Stupak's Continuing Claims.

From RHRealityCheck:

On Wednesday, December 9th, the New York Timespublished an op-ed by Congressman Bart Stupak in which he makes misleading claims about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House Health Care Reform bill. Here, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), author of the Capps Amendment, provides a reality check to the claims in that op-ed.

Bart Stupak's claim: Our amendment maintains current law, which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim. It dramatically restricts consumers’ ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that include coverage for abortion services in the health exchange. In contrast the Capps Amendment would havecontinued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services, but did so without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical procedure when it is paid for with private funds. Reputable third parties, like a recent study from George Washington University, have found that the Stupak amendment would restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for entirely with private funds.

Stupak's claim: Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions.

Reality: There is nothing in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to ensure that riders are available or affordable to individuals purchasing coverage in the Exchange. There is no evidence that insurance companies actually offer such riders in the five states that currently require women to purchase a separate rider for abortion coverage. It is not practical to expect women to plan ahead for an unintended pregnancy, or a pregnancy that goes terribly wrong, by purchasing a supplemental rider. Furthermore, if only women of childbearing age purchase such a rider then the premium for the rider will likely cost almost as much as the service.

Stupak's claim: Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.

Reality: It is highly unlikely that any insurance plan is going to go through the pain staking process of setting up two separate plans —one with abortion services offered and one without – to cater to less than 20% of the Exchange participants who are allowed to buy plans that include abortion services. As noted by Robert Laszewski, consultant to the insurance industry, in a recent interview with NPR, it wouldn’t make any business sense to offer a plan that would only be available to such a small number of potential customers. The recent report by George Washington University referenced above similarly concluded that the effect of the Stupak amendment would “militate against the creation of a supplemental coverage market.” The argument that this amendment won’t restrict access for women who are paying for insurance entirely out of their own pockets is false.

Stupak's claim: The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry — or for those who wish to use their private insurance to pay for an abortion.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion in Medicaid programs except in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the women, but it allows states to use their own funds to pay for abortions in other cases. Applying this same principle, the Capps Amendment, would have prohibitedfederal funding to pay directly for abortions in insurance plans in the Exchange, but would allow plans to pay for these services using private funding from patient premiums. Just as churches and military contractors are able to segregate federal funds from other sources of funding, insurance companies can do the same.

Stupak's claim: Given that insurance companies are able to offer separate plans with and without abortion coverage now, it seems likely that they would be able to continue to do so on the newly established health insurance exchange.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment severely limits private plans’ ability to cover abortions. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prohibit any abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions within the public option and any plans sold in the Exchange to individuals who receive affordability credits. Although insurance companies are permitted to offer plans that cover abortion to individuals who do not receive affordability credits, they would only be able to do so if they offered two nearly identical plans with the only difference being coverage and exclusion of abortion services. Furthermore health insurance companies would be unlikely to even offer a plan that does receive any funding from affordability credits because the risk pool would be too small. In effect, this ensures there will not be any private plans covering abortion available to individuals and small businesses that purchase health insurance in the new Exchange.

Stupak's claim: It is also disingenuous to argue (as some have) that it would be a hardship for insurance companies to provide plans with and without abortion coverage — when the health care bill as introduced in the House and Senate mandated exactly that. Under language suggested by Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, the new insurance exchange would be required to provide at least one plan that covers abortion and one plan that does not. If offering separate abortion-free plans in this way was acceptable under the Capps language (which has been endorsed by abortion-rights groups), then it should also be acceptable under the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment.

Reality: Under the Capps language the Exchange would have to ensure that there is at least one plan that does not include abortion services and one that does. These plans could be offered by the same company or different companies, so long as consumers were offered at least one of each option. In contrast the Stupak amendment requires private plans that want to offer a comprehensive plan including abortion services – and most private plans currently do offer comprehensive plans – they would have to offer an identical plan that does not include abortion services. So if Blue Cross Blue Shield wanted to offer a comprehensive plan they would also have to offer an identical plan without those services. According to insurance industry consultants like Robert Laszewski it wouldn’t make any business sense to offer a plan that would only be available to such a small number of potential customers (since less than 20 percent of the exchange customers would even be allowed to purchase a comprehensive plan). And that is why anyone in the Exchange – even those paying for insurance completely on their own – wouldn’t have access to abortion coverage. The argument that this amendment won’t restrict access for women who are paying for insurance entirely out of their own pockets is false.

Stupak's claim: While many accusations have been thrown around in recent months, the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions. Our intent was not to change, add or take anything away from federal law.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts amendment goes well beyond the status quo and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim. It dramatically restricts consumers’ ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that include coverage for abortion services in the health exchange. In contrast the Capps Amendment continued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services, but did so without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical procedure when it is paid for with private funds. Reputable third parties, like a recent study from George Washington University, have found that the Stupak amendment would restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for entirely with private funds.

Stupak's claim: This goal is consistent with the opinion of a majority of Americans. Recent CNN and Washington Post-ABC News polls found that 61 percent of Americans do not want taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. And while the Senate voted down a similar amendment on Tuesday, I’m hopeful that the spirit of our legislation will make it into the final bill.

Reality: The Capps language is consistent with both current law and public opinion because it explicitly prohibits federal funding for abortion services except those allowed by the Hyde amendment: rape, incest, and to protect the life of the woman. Furthermore, recent polling conducted by the Mellman Group found that:

• 54% of voters would oppose a health care reform plan that prevented private insurance plans from covering abortion.

• 56% of voters believe that those who receive partial subsidies should be able to buy plans that cover abortion – surpassing those who oppose this choice by a 20 point margin.

• 52% of voters support the “Capps compromise,” which would prohibit federal dollars, including partial subsidies, from being used to pay for abortions, though abortions could be paid using private funds generated by patients’ premiums.

• 47% agreed that “Political differences should not prevent us from moving forward on an otherwise good healthcare reform plan.”

As pollster Mark Mellman noted a column in the Hill recently (http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/68251-abortion-and-health-reform-debate), “Americans do not want reform to be an excuse for tightening restrictions on abortion or for taking away health coverage millions already have. Nor do they want an abortion debate to stop reform. Voters want an abortion-neutral healthcare reform.”

Coalition to Pass Health Care and Stop Stupak.

For Contact Information: Pass Health Care Reform and Stop Stupak! website <http://action.stopstupak.com/content.jsp?content_KEY=3039>

ADVOCACY GROUPS FORM COALITION TO PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM AND STOP STUPAK!
Coalition Announces DC Lobby Day and National Week of Action

A broad group of advocacy organizations from the progressive and women’s health communities has joined together to form the Coalition to Pass Health Care Reform and Stop Stupak! <http://action.stopstupak.com/content.jsp?content_KEY=3037> The coalition’s goal is to ensure that health care reform is passed and does not restrict women’s ability to purchase private health insurance that provides comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion. The coalition announced today that it will hold a DC Lobby Day on Wednesday, December 2, as part of its National Week of Action, Monday November 30–Sunday, December 6, to ensure that the anti-choice Stupak amendment is not included in the final health care reform legislation.

The Stupak amendment, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7, would, if enacted, effectively prohibit millions of women from using their own money to purchase private health insurance that provides comprehensive reproductive health care benefits. The result would be nothing less than an unacceptable ban on abortion coverage. If this bill is enacted, millions of American women will effectively be prohibited from purchasing private insurance that covers abortion through the new “exchange” or marketplace to be established under health care reform. The Stupak amendment is a radical proposal that upends current law on abortion coverage in the United States. It goes far beyond the Hyde amendment, which has unfairly prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion in most cases for more than 30 years. The Stupak amendment goes beyond Hyde because it would restrict abortion coverage by private health insurance plans in an unprecedented and dangerous manner.

The National Week of Action and the DC Lobby Day on December 2 will mobilize advocates from all over the country to communicate clearly to members of Congress that women need health reform that covers all of their health needs, including comprehensive reproductive health care. The coalition is building on the wave of pro-choice activism sparked by the passage of the amendment more than two weeks ago. Since passage, some members of the House who voted for the Stupak ban have expressed their doubts about this amendment. Notably, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not include the Stupak language in the health care reform bill he introduced on November 19, and President Obama has indicated that the amendment goes too far.

The members of the coalition are:

Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Medical Student Association (AMSA)
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)
Black Women for Reproductive Justice (BWRJ)
Black Women’s Health Imperative
Catholics for Choice
Center for Community Change
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Reproductive Rights
Choice USA
Coalition of Labor Union Women
EMILY’s List
Feminist Majority Foundation
Latina Sexual and Reproductive Justice Coalition (LSRJC)
MoveOn.org Political Action
NARAL Pro-Choice America
NARAL Pro-Choice New York
National Abortion Federation (NAF)
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF)
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
National Institute for Reproductive Health
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Women’s Health Network (NWHN)
National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)
New Prospect Family and Worship Center, Washington, DC
No Limits
People for the American Way (PFAW)
Personal PAC
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH)
Planned Parenthood <http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/>
Raising Women's Voices (RWJ)
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)
Religious Institute
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
YWCA

Toobin Asks Why the President and Democrats are So Quick to Cede Moral Ground on Abortion.

The President is pro-choice, and he has signalled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment. But, like many modern pro-choice Democrats, he has worked so hard to be respectful of his opponents on this issue that he sometimes seems to cede them the moral high ground. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he describes the “undeniably difficult issue of abortion” and ponders “the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion.” Elsewhere, he announces, “Abortion vexes.” The opponents of abortion aren’t vexed—they are mobilized, focussed, and driven to succeed. The Catholic bishops took the lead in pushing for the Stupak amendment, and they squeezed legislators in a way that would do any K Street lobbyist proud. (One never sees that kind of effort on behalf of other aspects of Catholic teaching, like opposition to the death penalty.) Meanwhile, the pro-choice forces temporized. But, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed not long ago, abortion rights “center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.” Every diminishment of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/11/23/091123taco_talk_toobin#ixzz0X8KXRgQf

Stupak: I Don't Say It As A Threat.

Anti-choice LifeNews notes Stupak's demand that his amendment stay in the health care bill or he won't vote for it when it comes 'round for approval. Sounding like a Republican, Stupak said:

"We won because [the Democrats] need us," says Mr. Stupak. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us—and that could be the final version of this bill."

Well, about some things, Stupak knows what he is doing. He knows the Dems need to keep those 40 knuckleheads in the health care tent. What hell he intends to pay is what worries women.

About That Mile: Get Federal Housing Loan, Forget an Abortion?

Senator Harkin (D -Iowa) tells the Hawkeye, a local Iowa site, his concerns regarding Stupak-Pitts - and scares the bejeezus out of me:

"I think virtually everyone in Congress has said from the beginning the final bill should make clear that federal funding, federal funding cannot be used for abortion services except in limited cases," Harkin said. "I fear that the House-passed language goes beyond that and will effectively prevent women from receiving abortion coverage under the new health exchanges, even if they're using their own money to buy insurance."

He said the Senate definitely will address the issue before the legislation goes to the floor, which could be as early as next week.

"I think ... keeping the status quo is the best thing we can do," Harkin said. "I see no reason to change it at this point in time."

Harkin sees the so-called Stupak amendment -- the new abortion language was introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- as a slippery slope to prevent abortions of any kind.

Under the language, he said, it could be interpreted that insurers lose tax benefits if they provide health insurance that covers abortion services. It could also mean someone who receives a federal housing loan could not get an abortion.

Emphasis mine.

All the while, "pro-life" groups are complaining that Stupak-Pitts doesn't go far enough (prior post)?

Giving An Inch, Taking a Mile.

Those who believe abortion should not be legal find the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care bill not sufficient, proving that all this talk about common ground is wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. There is no compromise when your work is to eliminate the most common medical procedure for women in the US.

What do "pro-life" conservatives say the amendment does not do?

Yes the Stupak amendment does limit funding for abortion in a public option. However do not consider the health care legislation, pro-life. It expands funding for contraceptives, some of which are abortifacient. It increases funding for Planned Parenthood and that is completely unacceptable. There is no conscience clause for pro-life health care providers, and it does force pro-life firms to provide coverage for abortionists. It also makes provision for euthanasia.

The Hyde amendment which prevents use of federal funds for abortion still allows funding of hospitals and health care clinics that provide reproductive services including contraception and abortion (in the broadest sense of the term, including both medically necessary abortion and so-called "elective"). Stupak-Pitts would further limit women's access to such resources. Are hospitals the next target on the "pro-life" plan of attack?

When the objective is to render a legal service inaccessible to women, there is no compromise.

(Note "pro-life" concerns regarding end of life care and conscience clause protections being commonly thrown into the discussion.)

Stupak-Pitts hurts women and does little to satisfy "pro-life" activists. It's no compromise when only one side once again cedes ground.

Stupak-Pitts Amendment and The Family.

Do not miss Jeff Sharlet's scary segment on Rachel Maddow last night. He connects the dots on The Family and the new evangelical power within the Democratic party.

Joint Statement of Religious Leaders on Stupak Amendment.

Great to see but I know it doesn't have the teeth or rolodex of the USCCB. Until they impress representatives and senators with their ability to effect votes, this group of religious leaders for choice is not going to have enough influence to save women from the trend of rights denial. Time for a new strategy.

Catholics for Choice, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Clergy Network, the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice, and the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing represent more than ten thousand religious leaders and tens of thousands of people of faith who believe that abortion must be safe, legal, and accessible. We come together to condemn the passage of the Stupak amendment, which if passed by the Senate will effectively deny coverage for abortion services to women covered by the new federal health care plan. We are appalled that religious leaders intervened to impose their specific religious doctrine intohealth care reform, not recognizing that women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith in making the decision as to whether or not abortion is appropriate in their specific circumstances. Further, we decry those who sought to use abortion as a way to scuttle much needed health care reform. We call on the President and the United States Senateto ensure that the final bill that passes does not include any specific prohibition on the use of federal funds for reproductive health care services. We pray for a renewed commitment to relational and reproductive justice for all.

Signed:

The Rev. Dr. Ignacio Castuera
National Chaplain
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
213 840 7258
agne23@aol.com

Jon O'Brien
President
Catholics for Choice
202 986 6093
www.catholicsforchoice.org

The Reverend Debra W. Haffner
Executive Director
Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
203 222 0055
www.religiousinstitute.org

The Reverend Carlton W. Veazey
President
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
202 628 7700
www.rcrc.org

Stupak in Their Words, True and Untrue.

From Anne Marie Polak at AmericansUnitedforLife, a hodge-podge of comments on Stupak that tend to leave the truth on the floor:

Statements are paraphrased.

Stupak: Capps Amendment is the most direct assualt on Hyde since 1997.

DeGette: Capps Amendment is a compromise that does not spend $1 federal dollar on abortion. Requirement for supplemental insurance is offensive to women

Pitts: The public does not support federal funding of abortion. Current law prevents fed. dollars from paying for abortion and subsidizing abortion providing plans. A majority opposes funding of abortion on demand.

DeLauro: Stupak Amdt. undermines Capps and is an unprecedented overreach of women’s basic rights and freedoms. It would take away the freedom of conscience and destroy access to abortion. Further, it would discriminate against working women. This is a life or death for women.

Dahlkemper: Stupak Amdt. doesnt change current law. It doesn’t outlaw abortion and it makes hcr consistent with all other federal hc programs.

Capps: Stupak Amdt. strips women of right to choose and does not maintain status quo. Abortion is a legal, medical procedure. Irony that those who claim to oppose gov interference in hc are the same people who are supporting this government regulation of abortion. Capps already does prohibit fed funding.

Pence: I still plan to oppose underlying bill. Ending life is morally wrong; it is wrong to pay for abortion with taxpayer money. Stand for life and vote yes on Stupak.

Lowey: Abortion should be legal and safe and rare. We should reduce abortions by offering contraceptive care, not by denying access to abortion.

McMorris Rodgers: Protection for children should start at moment that life begins. Women object to gov funding of abortion.

Ellsworth: We need to offer Prolife options on the exchange. I have been working with the Catholic bishops on this amdt. This has not been easy, but the amdt. honors and respects life, including the unborn. With passage of this amdt. I will support the bill.

Lee: Inserts federal gov into women’s choices. I am Catholic and I can understand the tough moral choices. But this amdt. will return us to the dark days of back alley abortions. Stupak goes way beyond Hyde. Stupak brings outrageous religious views into public policy. We have a separation of church and state that requires us not to cross this line. Also, it will hurt low income women.

Ryan: Support proteciton of life. Vote with a clean conscience.

Nadler: We are trying to level the playing field for women, but Stupak discriminates agasint women. There would be no abortion in public option, and Stupak would change existing law.

Bachmann: Life is the watershed issue of this generation. Destruction of life not healthcare.

Quigley: Only people who can afford insurance can get abortions. Poor women will be forced to sacrifice privacy.

Fortenberry: The vast majority of Americans do not want federal funding of abortion. Women deserve better. From early childhood to the elderly, we should not compromise. It is not ours to decide who lives or who dies.

Slaughter-(co chair of pro choice caucus) For years, pro-life and pro-choice members have been in a peaceful coexistence around Hyde. H.R. 3962 has the strongest conscience clause yet–and even that is now being strengthened. 30-40 years of women’s accomplishments are being cancelled out. Poor women will have to go to the back alley.

Schakowsky: Only option for abortion is separate policy. Millions of women will be losing coverage.

Lipinski-Approve the Hyde amdt for this bill through supporting Stupak.

Chris Smith: Abby Johnson viewed abortion and became pro-life because she saw how abortion kills a child. Abortion harms women–women who have abortions are more likely to later suffer depression. Abortion contributes to pre term birth–and pre term birth contributes to other problems we want to avoid. If we want to reduce abortions-dont fund them. A Guttmacher study confirms this.

Kaptur: Stupak Amdt. reaffirms Hyde, nothing mor

e