November 16, 2009 3:10 PM

Abortion Rights Groups Mobilize Against Stupak Amendment

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Health Care
Abortion rights advocates are ratcheting up their pressure on lawmakers to drop the proposal added to the House health care bill that would restrict health insurance coverage for abortions.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is launching an ad campaign today to emphasize that, if the Stupak amendment were to pass in the final health care bill, millions of women could potentially lose the coverage for abortions they currently have in their health care plans.

The group is running an ad online and on cable markets in the Washington area, leading up to the abortion debate that is sure to spring up in the Senate.

The so-called Stupak amendment would prevent women who receive federal subsidies for health insurance from purchasing plans that cover abortion. It would also explicitly ban abortion coverage from the government-run plan, or "public option." It would also essentially prevent private insurers from selling plans on the national health insurance exchange that cover abortion.

In other words, women who intend to use government subsidies for health care costs could be forced to switch plans. Additionally, if a woman's employer were to start offering coverage under the national health insurance exchange, she could potentially have to switch plans.

"Anti-choice forces in Washington are trying to use this important moment of health insurance reform to expand restrictions on abortion coverage in private insurance plans," Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup told CBSNews.com. The extent of the amendment's impact on coverage is surprising, she said.

"People who have terminations in the second trimester because of fetal abnormalities are also not going to be covered, and that's going to be stunning to people," Northup said. "This is a wake up call for pro-choice Americans."

Health Care Progress Report: November 16
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Abortion rights advocates say the amendment has galvanized their supporters. To prove that, NARAL Pro-Choice America today delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking that he leave the Stupak amendment out of the Senate bill. Working with state affiliates and other progressive partners, NARAL collected the signatures in 72 hours.

"America's pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement. "As the fight for health reform moves forward, we are making sure Sen. Reid and his colleagues understand that adding the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts language to the Senate bill is not an option."

NARAL is also launching this week a set of automated calls in 17 states that will allow NARAL supporters to connect with their senators with the touch of a button. The organization is also engaging its e-mail network of half a million supporters to rally opposition to the Stupak amendment. NARAL will be communicating with all 100 senators in the upcoming weeks, NARAL Communications Director Ted Miller told CBSNews.com.

Planned Parenthood is also engaging its supporters online, rallying support on progressive blog networks and via social networking. It is planning a national "day of action" for December 2.

Add a Comment
by griller2009 November 17, 2009 9:57 PM EST
While I absolutely agree that personal responsibility and prevention are the front-line defense in preventing unwanted pregnancies, and it is in society's best interest to reduce the number of abortions, the comments
that simply blame women and focus only on individual responsibility do not address the reality of why abortions happen. I also wonder if the commenters realize the larger implication of this proposed exclusion based on personal responsibility or moral opposition.

Here are some study-based facts about abortion:
--About half of all pregnencies are unintended--and 40% of those end in abortion. (Jones et al, 2008).

While condoms and birth control pills are effective, they do have error rates and are sometimes misused or are used inconsistently.
--54% of women who have abortions had used some contraception method during the month they became pregnant.
So you cannot dismiss all abortions as the result of carelessness and irresponsibility.

--Of those who did not use protection, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.
(Jones et al, 2002).

While some of these responses may indicate lack of responsibility, they may also indicate a lack of education, overreliance on the rhythm method (the least effective form of birth control), and misunderstanding about the use of contraception--something that could be partially remedied
through effective sex education. (Obviously rape is an important factor that should not be dismissed, but it appears to account for a minority of cases of abortion.)

Now to be fair, what are men willing to give up in their medical coverage?
In terms of not wanting to pay for this medical procedure that 100% affects women, what procedure that disproportionately affects men and involves some degree of personal responsibility would men be willing to pay for as a separate policy?

How about non-familial prostate cancer? Should we hold men with poor diets who now want to have expensive prostate surgeries to the same standard?

There are lots of medical conditions affected to varying degrees by lifestyle choices and personal responsibility which are much more expensive than elective abortions.

I'm sure insurance companies would welcome this new philosophy of risk. Let everyone predict what future medical conditions they think they might have and individually buy only the insurance they think they might need. Happy predicting!
Reply to this comment
by FatherFrankPavone November 17, 2009 3:29 PM EST
If the Senate wants to pass a health care bill that respects the will of the American people, it will need to add restrictions to abortion funding. A majority of the House of Representatives voted for the Stupak/Pitts amendment, and that represents the thinking of a majority of Americans. The Senate should act in a similar manner. This is a health care bill, not a bill to expand child killing.
Those who argue that abortion is a private matter in which the government has no business cannot then insist that federal funds be used to pay for it. Money laundering schemes or shell games will not be tolerated. Abortion is not health care and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize it.
Reply to this comment
by Pharmachick November 17, 2009 1:59 AM EST
Oral contraception and other proven methods of pregnancy prevention exist (ie -condoms). There's even a "morning after pill" available. If people are careless enough to ignore these readily accessible, economic, and effective products, then I really don't feel sorry for those who must front the entire bill for the cost of an abortion.
Reply to this comment
by Myra44 November 17, 2009 12:39 AM EST
Abortion is LEGAL in this country and should be a covered medical procedure, just like testing and treatment for STIs, prenatal care, and care for heart disease. It is an incredibly common procedure, and in fact one in three women in America will have an abortion in her lifetime. Someone in your life has had an abortion. We need to stop seeing abortion as something totally foreign to us - I guarantee someone you know and love has had an abortion.

Health reform should be expanding access to needed health care services for all Americans. It should not be used to DECREASE access for half this country's population.

A huge thank you to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and every other organization and activist out there who is fighting to ensure that women will have access to the health care they need in health reform!
Reply to this comment
by ajvw November 16, 2009 6:07 PM EST
simple fix...ladies use your knees to hold a quarter and don't let it fall
Reply to this comment
by griller2009 November 16, 2009 5:34 PM EST
The current status quo is the Hyde amendment which prohibits Federal dollars for abortions. The Stupak amendment goes further in that those who buy policies through the proposed insurance exchange would not get abortion coverage even though they may be paying premiums for this coverage substantially with their own money.
The standard counterargument is to propose that these women buy additional coverage for abortion as a separate policy using their own money. This is about as ridiculous as asking all men to buy prostate cancer or heart attack coverage as an additional policy. Health insurance coverage should cover the unforeseeable future---how many people plan ahead for unforeseeable health conditions? The status quo in health insurance coverage is the inclusion of abortion--and this amendment would change that status quo eventually making it the exception rather than the rule in health insurance coverage.
Reply to this comment
by retm-w November 16, 2009 6:26 PM EST
Elective abortion is not the same as, prostrate cancer or a heart attack. Because you were stupid and had unprotected sex, everybody else should have to pay higher rates to cover you. I'll agree with rape,incest or a life threatening condition, but not elective abortion.
by griller2009 November 16, 2009 6:59 PM EST
Prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease risks are both increased due to smoking, diets high in dietary fat, and lack of preventative care. Why should those of us who are careful what we put into our bodies be forced to subsidize them? Because you were stupid and chose to smoke, chose to eat meats and dairy, and chose not to seek early treatment, everybody should have to pay higher rates to cover you?

Obviously an argument can be made why any one group should not have to cover any other group--this divisive way of looking at health care eventually undermines the concept of insurance which is based on pooled risks.

As with taxes, I don't get to contribute to just the federal program I agree with, neither should I be able to dictate where my premiums go to pay for others' health conditions. If we're going down that route, we might as well just rely ONLY on ourselves and set aside personal health care accounts. Just don't expect to be able to actually afford it when you find yourself in real trouble.
by rafirebird November 16, 2009 4:45 PM EST
If you want to play, then you should have to pay!!!
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...