Archive for March, 2010
In Massachusetts, President Obama’s Executive Order Adversely Impacting Abortion Rights!!
March 24th, 2010 by catherineToday, March 24th, The Boston Globe reported on the immediate negative impact that the health reform law and President Obama’s executive order could have on Massachusetts’ policy on abortion coverage in its state health insurance exchange.
”The executive order Obama is scheduled to sign [today] directs federal administrators to establish guidelines within six months to help states comply with the new law. Under the new federal law, any insurance plans sold in state-based exchanges that offer abortion coverage and have customers who receive federal subsidies must collect two separate premium payments per month — one for the abortion coverage and one for the rest of the premium. The check for the abortion coverage must come from private funds and remain segregated from federal money.
”Insurance plans participating in the state’s exchange — called the Massachusetts Connector — are required to offer abortion coverage, and the state has a system in place to ensure that federal money does not pay for the coverage, as required by federal law. Terry Dougherty, Medicaid director with the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said an independent actuary determines the value of every benefit in an individual’s health plan, minus the value of abortion coverage and patient copayments. That amount is submitted to the federal government for partial reimbursement, and the reimbursement is placed in the state general fund. According to the Globe, an abortion procedure is typically valued at less than $1 per enrollee per month.
”A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it is too early to know what effect the federal law could have on companies that sell federally subsidized plans in the Massachusetts exchange. Abortion-rights advocates say the new federal system “will not only be inconvenient for consumers … but could hinder access to abortions by causing insurers to pull out” of the exchanges, the Globe reports. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Executive Director Andrea Miller said, “It’s a chilling effect.” She added, “Any time you add additional steps that people have to take in order to obtain health services, you have a drop-off, and you have a burden, even for something like picking up a prescription” (Lazar, Boston Globe, 3/24).” The National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Report 3/24/2010
President Obama Betrays Women with Abortion Restriction Deal
March 22nd, 2010 by catherineChoice Matters stands with the Center for Reproductive Rights in being “deeply disappointment with President Obama’s decision to issue an executive order on abortion restrictions after the House of Representatives approves the healthcare bill. The order, intended to secure support from anti-choice Democrats for healthcare reform legislation, essentially imports the Hyde Amendment strictures to an executive order.
“The President’s decision to issue an executive order designed to assuage Representative Stupak and his cohorts is a betrayal of millions of women across this country and of his campaign promises. The order lends credibility to an already impossibly flawed policy that punishes and discriminates against poor women by denying them the full range of reproductive health services and their constitutional right. Current policy known as the Hyde Amendment was denounced by President Obama himself as a presidential candidate.
“Current law withholds funding for abortion under Medicaid and other federal programs even though the service is one of the most common procedures for American women. For millions of women, these federal programs are their sole means of getting health services, including reproductive healthcare. Abortion is the only medically necessary health service excluded from this coverage. Failure to provide insurance coverage for a medical procedure that only women need is discrimination.
“It is unacceptable that a pro-choice President has put his imprimatur on a highly restrictive and unjust anti-choice measure. Early on in this debate a good faith compromise supported by pro-choice groups was tossed out to appease Representative Stupak and his cohorts. It is tragic that, under a pro-choice administration and a Democratic majority in Congress, harmful anti-choice policy will be the price American women will pay for healthcare reform.” Nancy Northup, president, Center for Reproductive Rights.
Choice Matters supports National NOW President Terry O’Neill in her statement, “Through this order, the President has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass. President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn’t disagree more.”
Sunday’s Health Care Legislation
The health care bill that passed the House of Representatives yesterday imposes unfair and unnecessary burdens on women who choose to purchase abortion coverage and this will expand significantly the pool of women who are not able to get coverage for this basic reproductive health care. Insurance companies have already stated they will not provide abortion coverage because of the bureaucratic nightmare instituted by this legislation. The legislation also permits states to refuse entirely to allow private insurance coverage of abortion in plans offered through state insurance exchanges.
More than 85 percent of private plans cover abortion care today. Those plans will not provide this coverage under the health care bill passed yesterday.
This legislation also include a one-sided “conscience clause” that protects health providers or payers that oppose abortion, but fails to protect those providers who honor women’s right to this legal health service.
What happened to President Obama’s promise to the American people: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”?
Health Care legislation at the expense of women’s rights is not reform.
Moving Women’s Health Care Backwards?
March 9th, 2010 by catherineA Step Backward for Women’s Health Care?
by Maya Schenwar, Executive Director, truthout, 3/8/2010
Monday evening, after a rousing speech in Philadelphia pushing for health reform passage, President Obama will celebrate International Women’s Day with a White House reception honoring women around the world for their achievements.
This recognition is important. However, International Women’s Day – the brainchild of a group of predominantly socialist women with revolutionary dreams of equality and basic human rights for all – presents an opportunity for a little more expansive thinking on the part of the Obama administration.
One item that’s ripe for rethinking, ASAP: the gender discrimination that is burning a hole through the Senate health reform bill that’s headed for a House vote next week.
Though the Senate bill lacks the Stupak stamp of shame, it certainly doesn’t come up short in the department of reactionary anti-choice provisions. Currently, the vast majority of private health plans cover abortion procedures. The Senate plan endorsed by President Obama would severely complicate payments for abortion-inclusive plans, requiring individuals covered by those plans to write two separate checks – one to cover abortion procedures and one for all other coverage. Insurers then must deposit abortion payments and everything-else payments into two separate accounts.
Chances are, the new regulations would drive insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from their plans, according to health policy analysts. These eliminations would impact millions of Americans: more than one-third of adult women in the US have had at least one abortion. When it comes to choice, the health reform plan in its current state marks a dangerous step backward.
The bill’s shortcomings for women don’t stop at abortion. Earlier in the health-care-push season, Obama promised a plan that would eliminate “gender rating” – the practice of charging more for women’s coverage than for men’s. Gender rating is still going strong in 40 states. Insurance companies rally around the excuse that the policy is “actuarially based”; that women cost more to insure than men, mostly due to pregnancy- and birth-related medical care. Beneath that flimsy statistical veil, it’s blatant discrimination:
Insurance companies acknowledged that themselves 40 years ago when they abandoned race as a price-determining factor.
Despite the president’s promise, the Senate bill upon which we’re pinning our hopes for health reform would not eradicate gender rating. It would openly permit the practice for employers of businesses with 100 employees or more, giving large employers an obvious incentive to hire men over women to keep down insurance costs.
Gender rating also puts businesses with a mostly female workforce – childcare centers, some school districts and nurse associations – at a disadvantage. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “One such employer with a predominantly female workforce estimated that, due to gender rating, her annual premiums were $2,000 higher per employee.”
As the health care debate drags on and on, there’s a lot of shushing going around. Many leading Democrats are hoping to sweep the Senate bill’s discriminatory flaws under the rug. After all, health reform is desperately needed, and it would be really nice to finally push a passable bill through before we all lose our sanity (not to mention our insurance).
However, as it stands, the health reform bill would endanger the basic human rights of many women. This International Women’s Day, it’s time for Congress and the president to stop ignoring the bill’s consequences for women’s health coverage – and start discussing options for averting them.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards calls for Congress to fix the legislation’s abortion caveats during reconciliation – a move that could prove very difficult, since reconciliation is designed to address only items that are relevant to the budget. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check notes that the only route to a true repair job may be a “future bill aimed at making technical fixes to health reform.”
Either way, the work to protect women’s health coverage from these sweeping restrictions and limitations must begin now. As the International Women’s Day reception festivities wind down at the White House tonight, the president should do some hard thinking about how to ensure the basic human right of health care for women here at home.
Creative Commons License
Questions to Ponder from Choice Matters
Where are the leaders of 2010?
When did we forget how to demand to be counted?
When will women say “No More” and mean it?
