In the aftermath of the election, the National Latina Institute will focus on saving the landmark health care law which will cover an estimated 9 million Latinos and increase funding for community health centers – a lifeline to many in our neighborhoods.
The 112th Congress will be dominated by fights over social issues, from abortion to family planning to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Two years from now, we will look back on November 2, 2010, as the day that far-right Republicans used a wave of economic frustration to usher in the most anti-choice, anti-sex ed, anti-LGBT, anti-family planning, anti-contraception Congress in our nation’s history.
Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check: No Anti-Choice Mandate, But Don’t Worry, They’ll Make One Up. Jodi also has a bummer of a prediction: “We will see almost immediately a range of efforts to focus on restricting reproductive and sexual health and rights.”
Nancy Northup at the Center for Reproductive Rights: Election Perspective from Nancy Northup, declares that “We will continue to work for the day when reproductive rights, like First Amendment rights, are protected from the outcome of elections.”
The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is ongoing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and those of you interested in watching or catching up on the proceedings can check out the C-SPAN website and the C-SPAN video library.
It’s a little confusing, because each day’s hearings are split into multiple videos, and I haven’t found good access to complete transcripts. I did find that on the page for each video segment, there is a “search transcript” option to put in a word and see if it was covered in that segment. Most of the abortion discussion seems to be in Day 2, Part 1 — if you do the transcript search and click on one of the results, it will start playing the video right at that bit of the footage.
* It would regulate the practice of Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs), trained midwives who attend women planning to give birth at home.
* It would also strike outdated statutory language that mandates physician supervision of Certified Nurse-Midwives (CNMs) — a position endorsed nationally by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and already adopted by 44 states. Required supervision creates excessive and unnecessary liability for physicians and is the reason full-scope CNM services are not now accessible in high-need communities such as Lawrence, Southbridge, Worcester and Gardner.
If you live in Massachusetts, please call your legislator and urge support for this bill by asking Rep. Harriett Stanley, co-chair of the committee, to report the bill out favorably. If the bill dies, then 1.4 million families in the state will still not have the kind of access to midwives that families in many other states do.
Thanks for your support! Please share this post with friends and colleagues in Massachusetts.
Entrant: Sandra Gandsman Nominee: Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman and Speaker of the House
There is no woman in the country who deserves this honor more than Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
By sheer strength of will, this woman has led an unruly Congress into passage of the most far reaching health care legislation in the history of our country. She persisted when others might have folded under the stress of constant attacks both personal, ugly and unrelenting.
While there is much still to be accomplished in health care, this is a brave new start, and Congresswoman Pelosi should be applauded for her success.
While some women may argue that she gave in to the right wing and the anti-choice minority with regard to abortion rights, I, however, would argue that she understood the historic movement she was propelling forward and determined the greater good was in providing health care to the many. I, and the millions of women who have found themselves with out insurance or with overpriced policies, who feared losing a job would mean losing insurance, who were denied coverage for preexisting conditions or who had to choose between food or medication, need not fear anymore.
Putting HCR in Context: The Guttmacher Institute looks at the pros and cons of health care reform as it relates to reproductive health, including sex education, Medicaid expansion and funding for public health programs.
The research institute notes that insurance companies not only would have to “jump through numerous, unprecedented hoops to estimate the cost of abortion coverage and ensure that the abortion payments never mix with other funds,” but “they also are likely to face extensive public scrutiny and protest around their action.”
All told, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, “the more logical response” for private insurers marketing plans within the exchanges — and eventually in the broader market as well — “would be not to sell products that cover abortion services.”
Plus: Drawing from its Congressional record, NARAL flags Republicans who have voted against reproductive rights and who also warned HRC would lead to government intrusion on private medical decisions.
President Obama and Democratic Congresswomen repeatedly said, “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” I understand why they said it. They felt this was the only way to get the bill through and perhaps they were right. But abortion is health care! One out of three women has an abortion during her reproductive years. One of the best ways to reduce the stigma around abortion is to normalize the procedure within mainstream health care settings. The mantra “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill” reinforces exactly the opposite message.
Plus: In a separate piece written earlier this month, Katha Pollitt offers concrete suggestions on how the Democratic Party and the Obama administration can repay supporters of women’s rights for cooperating on HRC, including taking steps to improve maternal care and outcomes, and full funding for Title X and the Violence Against Women Act. I love the ending:
Speaking of violence against women, Dems, would you look in the effing mirror? New York’s Hiram Monserrate and David Paterson? Scott Lee Cohen in Illinois? That these men and others like them could get as far as they did says the culture of the party is tone-deaf when it comes to abuse and its warning signs. The only way to detoxify politics of tolerance for violence is to have lots more women in office. If India can pass a law requiring Parliament to be one-third women, surely the Democratic Party can figure out how to achieve equal numbers of women here. Pro-choice women. Feminist women.
Start by backing the grassroots campaign of former teacher and county commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who has announced her intention to challenge Bart Stupak in the August primary. “He has a right to his personal, religious views,” says Saltonstall, “but to deprive his constituents of needed healthcare reform because of those views is reprehensible.” Now there’s a woman with gumption and a gift for stating things clearly.
In Other News …
Revisions to On-Air Abortion Language: NPR reporters will no longer use the terms pro-choice and pro-life to describe both sides of the abortion rights debate. Instead, according to an internal memo:
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.
Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.” [An actuality is a clip of tape of someone talking. So if a source uses those terms, NPR will not edit them out.]
Georgia Senate Passes Abortion Bill: The latest assault on women’s reproductive health in Georgia is SB 529, a Senate bill that makes it possible to bring criminal charges against doctors, boyfriends, pimps and even parents if they encourage a woman to have an abortion. The bill’s supporters frame it as a way to protect women — especially women of color — but women’s health advocates say the true motivation is to criminalize abortion.
“This bill was created under the false assumption that abortion doctors solicit women of color, particularly, black women,” said Democratic State Sen. Donzella James. “This bill calls into question all who make a deeply private and personal medical decision. Every woman, regardless of ethnic background, should have the ability to make personal decisions. Not the people in this room. It is between, she, her family and God.”
Heidi Williamson of Sister Song has more. “Publicly, white Republican men claim to care about pregnant black women who are allegedly being targeted by the abortion industry. Privately, those same men scramble to ‘opt Georgia out’ of national healthcare reform and find the perfect wedge issue for the mid-term elections to build the Republican base in African-American communities,” she writes.
We previously discussed an anti-abortion billboard campaign in Georgia targeting black women that proclaims black children are an endangered species. Women’s eNews reports that the campaign may soon go national. For more on the difference in abortion rates among women, see this Guttmacher Institute policy report, which notes that black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than white women because they have higher rates of unintended pregnancy.
What’s Up With Lilith Fair?: After announcing that it would donate a dollar from every ticket sold to a women’s organization in each of the 36 host cities, Lilith Fair is coming under fire for including organizations that don’t support a full range of reproductive services.
Apparently, the only vetting Lilith did was to look online for women-focused organizations with federal tax ID numbers. Jessica Hopper interviewed Nettwerk CEO and Lilith cofounder Terry McBride about the selection process and received a less-than-informed response.
“The seeding at the start was done with a basic digital search in each market of woman’s charities,” he said. “It’s not perfect. Nor could it be, as we simply don’t have the local expertise even within our own city of Vancouver.”
Really? Lilith couldn’t have contacted local women’s health advocates, or put a few interns on the project? Perhaps the festival should include a booth for organizers on research skills.
There’s always a chance for improvement. Facebook fans will vote on the selected organizations, and the top three vote-getters in each city will be forwarded to Lilith founders — Sarah McLachlan, Terry McBride, Dan Fraser and Marty Diamond — who will hand pick the winners. And organizations not currently featured can self-submit for consideration. Read more at the Chicago Reader.
In case you slept through Sunday’s exciting (no really! it was!) health care debate on the House floor, here’s a look at what went down — and, most importantly, what health care reform means for the country and for you.
The Nut Graph
The House approved the Senate bill by a vote of 219-212, with 34 Democrats voting against and zero Republican support. The bill expands insurance coverage to 32 million additional people; approximately 23 million will remain uninsured, about one-third of whom are undocumented immigrants.
Passage was sealed once President Obama placated anti-abortion Democrats by agreeing to issue an executive order reaffirming restrictions against the public funding of abortions.
So it Came Down to Support for Women’s Reproductive Health?
Pretty much. Dana Goldstein of the Daily Beast describes how Obama reneged on his pledge to support reproductive rights.
Raising Women’s Voices, which has done a great job advocating for and reporting on health care reform, has a reaction round-up from pro-choice advocates (and a statement on the final bill). Some organizations, angry with the Senate bill’s language on abortion coverage, expressed disappointment with Obama’s order. Terry O’Neil, president of NOW, issued a highly critical statement, as did Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds.
The only thing worse at this point would have been the original House language proposed by Sen. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) — who agreed to support the Senate version when given the cloak of the executive order.
I Heard Stupak’s a Baby Killer
The Republicans initially lacked the maturity to ‘fess up to who shouted “baby killer” while Stupak, now an enemy of the Republicans, was speaking on the House floor. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) finally came forward. Neugebauer, notes the Washington Post, is otherwise known for co-sponsoring a bill requiring presidential candidates to produce birth certificates to prove their eligibility for office.
It’s Not Over Till It’s Over
President Obama is expected to sign the bill on Tuesday, then the Senate takes up debate on the bill’s amendments. What does that mean? In short, House members disagreed with a bunch of items in the Senate bill and, during careful negotiation prior to last night’s vote, both sides agreed to modifications. The House approved the reconciliation measure, essentially trusting that the Senate will do the same. Christina Bellantoni explains all at TPM.
The National Partnership for Women & Families would like you to urge the Senate to pass reconciliation and finish the job.
This is What Change Looks Like
Writing at AlterNet, Adele Stan has a great re-cap of this weekend’s protests (red scare and all), and the deal-making and high drama that resulted in the bill’s passage.
“This isn’t radical reform. But it is major reform,” Obama said after the House vote. “This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction. This is what change looks like.”
The Immediate Effects Of the Health Reform Bill
That’s the title of this Kaiser Health News story, a good place to start for a discussion of the “early deliverables” — benefits that will kick in this year:
* Dependent children could remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26.
* Senior citizens would get more help paying for drugs in Medicare.
* People with health problems that left them uninsurable could qualify for coverage through a federal program.
* Ban on lifetime limits on medical coverage.
* Tax credits for businesses.
Could You Be More Specific? I found a terrific analysis from the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce that demonstrates the impact health care reform will have on each and every Congressional district. For example, in my district — Ill.-5 (PDF) — the bill is predicted to, among other things:
* Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 142,000 families and 14,100 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
* Extend coverage to 69,500 uninsured residents.
* Guarantee that 13,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
* Protect 1,500 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
* Allow 67,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.
* Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 23 community health centers.
But What Does it Mean for Me?
That depends. The New York Times has a good interactive graphic that breaks it down based on whether you’re currently insured (and how you’re covered) — or if you don’t have health insurance.
Who Else Benefits?
Glad you asked! The short answer: hospitals and drug makers. And eventually doctors. For insurers, it’s a mixed bag, but they won’t have to worry about competition from a government-run public option — it didn’t make the Senate bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says maybe this year. To be continued …
If you want the long view, check out this interactive timeline on the history of health reform efforts in the United States.
Last Question: What’s Up With Pelosi’s Giant Gravel? MSNBC’s First Read notes that Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who used the same gavel when the House voted on Medicare in 1965, gave the gavel to Pelosi to use on this momentous occasion. I think it suited her well.
More questions? Ask them in the comments, or leave links to blogs and news coverage.
Thursday’s bipartisan meeting at the White House (which you can follow live) promises to kick-start what may be the final descent toward healthcare reform. An overview:
Does healthcare reform have a chance? Is bipartisanship a real possibility? David Leonhardt of The New York Times provides some provisional answers.
Igor Volsky over at the Wonk Room brings us up to speed by providing a nice, clear comparison of the House bill, the Senate bill and President Obama’s new proposal.
As far as questions women should be asking about their stake and status in the debate, Lisa Codispoti and Brigette Courtot at the National Women’s Law Center remind us of the “8 Questions” they have been asking all along — and how Obama’s proposal addresses (or fails to address) the issues.
Writing at Raising Women’s Voices, Amy Allina identifies ways in which Obama’s proposal builds on the Senate bill but also notes that it “does not include the changes that Raising Women’s Voices has been urging Congress to make to the restrictive abortion provisions in [the Senate] bill” — namely by eliminating the requirement that policyholders make two separate monthly payments if they want a policy that includes abortion coverage.
Finally, this is politics, and political agendas and expediency can often trump what’s right. Brian Beutler and Christina Bellantoni at Talking Points Memo dissect each party’s strategies, and Ezra Klein at the Washington Post provides a viewer’s guide.
All of this may come down to an arcane Senate procedure known as reconciliation. David M. Herszenhorn at The New York Times offers a primer.
When you feel yourself getting tired of all the red tape, get a pep talk from Ellen Schaffer and Joe Brenner at EQUAL/Center for Policy Analysis, whose PowerPoint — “The Truth About Health Reform: It’s Up to Us” — helps to put priorities in order.
We wanted to share this important notice from SisterSong regarding a Georgia House bill created ostensibly to protect women of color from being targeted by abortion providers. Note the Trust Black Women press conference on Tuesday on the steps of Georgia’s Capitol, mentioned at the end of this bulletin.
For more information about the current anti-abortion billboard campaign in Georgia, visit SPARK Reproductive Justice Now.
* * * * * * *
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective OPPOSES House Bill 1155 — The Sex and Race Selection Bill. This bill seeks to ban the solicitation and targeting of women of color by abortion providers throughout the state.
This misleading issue of abortions for sex- and race-selection in Georgia means that we have to use facts and science to stand up for women of color without undermining our support for abortion rights or without enforcing racial stereotypes about women of color. Intent on driving a wedge between reproductive justice and racial justice organizations, and pro-choice advocates, the bill reflects the false assumption that abortion providers throughout the state “solicit” women of color.
If implemented, this bill will adversely impact abortion providers by requiring them to prove that they are not targeting women of a certain race or ethnicity. This burden could result in delayed medical services, particularly for women of color. Additionally, this legislation would alter the racketeering laws of the Georgia Code to include abortion providers. This is unacceptable as abortion is legal in the State of Georgia, and the alleged abuses of this medical procedure are unfounded. Such a bill would have a terrible effect on women’s ability to access reproductive health care services throughout the state.
This bill comes on the heels of a controversial billboard campaign that targets Black women in Georgia. The blatantly sexist and racist billboards declare Black children as an endangered species and prey on the conscience of Black women. The mere association between the born and unborn with endangered animals provides a disempowering and dehumanizing message to the Black community, which is completely unacceptable.
The statewide 80-billboard campaign is sponsored by The Endangered Species Project, a collaborative effort between The Radiance Foundation and Georgia’s Operation Outrage. We recognize that the lived experiences of women of color, and Black women specifically, drive how and when women choose abortion, not abortion providers who defend women’s rights. In order to protect the lives of women and families, abortion must remain safe, legal, affordable, and accessible. Any attack on women’s rights is in violation of all of our human rights.
SisterSong will detail the damaging effects of HB 1155 and how the public can advocate for the reproductive justice, reproductive rights, and reproductive health of women of color. Sponsored by SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW, during their Legislate THIS! Action Day, the Trust Black Women Press Conference will take place on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm on the steps of Georgia’s Capitol.
OBOS is committed to expanding our audience and in this spirit we’ve asked former board member Moises Russo to translate into Spanish several of our blog entries. We hope to translate more entries in the coming year.
En OBOS estamos comprometidos a expandir nuestra audiencia de lector@s y en este espíritu le hemos solicitado a Moisés Russo, ex-miembro de la Junta de OBOS, que traduzca al español varios de los blogs que tenemos en la página electrónica. Esperamos continuar con dichas traducciones durante este año.
Un juez federal le ha ordenado a la Administración de Alimentos y Comida (FDA) el día lunes que haga la píldora anticonceptiva del día después “Plan B” disponible sin prescripción médica a mujeres jóvenes desde los 17 años de edad.
El juez falló que la agencia había cedido en forma inapropiada a presiones políticas de la administración Bush el 2006 cuando estableció el límite en los 18 años de edad.
La agencia tiene 30 días para cumplir con la orden, en la cual el juez también instó a la agencia a considerar remover todas las restricciones a las ventas de Plan B sin prescripción. El medicamento consiste en dos píldoras que previenen la concepción si son tomadas dentro de las primeras 72 horas luego de una relación sexual.*
Nancy Northup, Presidenta del Centro por los Derechos Reproductivos, el cual demando a la FDA en representación de organizaciones de mujeres e individuos, llamó el fallo del juez “una completa reivindicación del argumento que los defensores de los derechos reproductivos han estado haciendo por muchos años, que en administración Bush era la política, y no la ciencia, la que guiaba las decisiones en temas de salud de las mujeres.
“Plan B” ha estado disponible en los Estados Unidos desde 1999, pero inicialmente solo con prescripción médica. Hubo que esperar hasta el 2006 para que la FDA aprobara las ventas sin prescripción médica a mujeres desde los 18 años de edad, lo cual significa que debe estar en stock detrás del mostrador en las farmacias y que las mujeres deben mostrar un comprobante de su edad. Esto lo hace difícil para que algunas mujeres, incluyendo a inmigrantes sin documentos, puedan obtener las píldoras en forma fácil cuando las necesitan.
En su fallo de 52 páginas, el Juez Edgard R. Korman de la Corte del Distrito Federal en Nueva Cork concluyó que “no hay ningún propósito útil que esté siendo cautelado si se continúa la privación de acceso a Plan B a mujeres de 17 años sin prescripción médica”, y que “tanto los oficiales como personal de la FDA han estado de acuerdo en que mujeres de 17 años pueden usar “Plan B” en forma segura sin prescripción médica”.
Korman dijo que la decisión de la FDA “no fue el resultado de un proceso de toma de decisiones razonado y de buena fe dentro de la agencia”. El juez citó a oficiales de la FDA por comunicarse en forma impropia con oficiales de la Casa Blanca sobre “Plan B” y llenar el panel de expertos a cargo de analizar el medicamento con personas que tienen visiones en contra del aborto. La FDA también ignoró las conclusiones sobre seguridad del medicamento a las que llegó de su propio panel asesor.
En un artículo publicado la semana pasada en el Huffington Post, Northrup resume el bizantino trayecto de la aplicación del estatus de venta sin prescripción a “Plan B”, y describe lo que se conoció durante el juicio:
Meses de testimonios en el caso federal han dejado al descubierto una red de engaños tras bambalinas, repleto de oficiales de alto nivel en la FDA doblegándose a influencias políticas externas, eludiendo las regulaciones de la agencia, para finalmente conspirar para otorgar solamente acceso restringido a “Plan B”.
Testimonios judiciales revelaron que un oficial confesó a uno de sus colegas que tuvo que rechazar la solicitud de “Plan B” por miedo a perder su empleo. Otro le dijo a un colega que el plan era que la agencia pospusiera cualquier decisión sobre el medicamento todo el tiempo que fuera posible y, si se vieran forzados a actuar, aprobar el medicamento con una restricción etaria, todo para “apaciguar a los votantes de la administración [Bush]”.
Susan Wood, la anterior directora de la FDA para asuntos de salud de las mujeres, que renunció el 2005 como protesta a las demoras en aprobar “Plan B”, le dijo al Times ahora hay una nueva oportunidad de “restaurar la integridad científica de la FDA”.
Además: ¿Necesitas información sobre Anticoncepción de emergencia, o si tu farmacia más cercana la tiene en stock? Revisa el “Sitio Web de Anticoncepción de Emergencia”, un recurso independiente, con revisión de pares administrado por la Oficina de Investigación sobre Población de la Universidad de Princeton y por la Asociación de Profesionales en Salud Sexual y Reproductiva.
Tomorrow Massachusetts voters will go to the polls for a special election to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy. The incredibly, unexpectedly tight race has implications that reach nationwide.
Whoever wins this seat may cast the deciding vote in the Senate for healthcare – and play a crucial role in other divisive issues down the road. Democratic candidate State Attorney General Martha Coakley will vote in favor of healthcare reform; her Republican rival, State Sen. Scott Brown, has promised to vote against it.
While there are many reasons to be frustrated with healthcare reform, consider these numbers: Without reform, 54 million people or more (depending on who’s guesstimating) won’t have insurance in 2019; under the Senate bill, that number is reduced to 23 million, and under the House bill it’s even lower, at 18 million. And both bills have an employer mandate and subsidies for low-income families.
And there are many smaller points that you may not have noticed in such big bills, such as 100 percent Medicare reimbursement for certified nurse midwives.
If you haven’t been following this race closely, you may be interested in this summary of the media coverage. Coakley has been criticized a la Hillary Clinton — too stern and serious. Let’s agree, though, that she never would have stood a chance had she posed nude for Cosmo way back when, as did Brown.
Via AirForceTimes I learned that the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act [S 2904/HR 4386], a bill that would require emergency contraception to be made available at all military health care treatment facilities, was introduced in mid-December by sponsors Al Franken (D-MN) in the Senate and Michael Michaud (D-ME) in the House.
NARAL Pro-Choice America praised the bill, noting the bill’s potential affect on women serving overseas, stating, “Sen. Franken’s bill is based on the principle of fairness: Women in the military serving overseas should be able to access EC the same way women stateside do.”
The blogger at Lettuce Spray called the Senate Committee on Armed Services about the legislation (something she also encourages others to do), and learned that “the committee has not yet scheduled anything for January, and are not scheduled to start any hearings until after January 20th. As soon as a hearing date is set (if at all) it will be posted to their website.”
OBOS co-founder and executive director Judy Norsigian has been in Nashville, TN, for the weekend, and this morning she was a guest on Liberadio(!), Mary Mancini and Freddie O’Connell’s local political radio show.
Topics covered include the history of the organization and the need for its work (including the landmark book and newer initiatives), the PRIM&R conference Judy attended while in town, Senator Kennedy, health care reform, media portrayals of health reform proposals, the Stupak amendment, abortion, age discrimination, social justice and diversity, among others.
The show is archived online at http://tinyurl.com/yhadu9s (you may need to download RealPlayer to listen). Judy’s segment starts at about 1:32 of the 2-hour episode. No transcript is available, but you can get some quick text notes on the segment via Liberadio(!)’s Twitter updates from this morning.
Thanks to Liberadio(!), and to everyone who came out to the OBOS house party last night!
The passage is bittersweet, but finally it’s done … With 6:51 time remaining to vote, Democrats have secured the 218 “yea” votes needed to pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962).
Final tally 220-215; 39 Democrats voted “no.” One Republican — Rep. Joseph Cao, who represents the New Orleans area — voted “yea.”
“Democrats have sought for decades to provide universal health care, but not since the 1965 passage of Medicare and Medicaid has a chamber of Congress approved such a vast expansion of coverage,” reports the Washington Post. “Action now shifts to the Senate, which could spend the rest of the year debating its version of the health-care overhaul. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring a measure to the floor before Thanksgiving, but legislation may not reach Obama’s desk before the new year.”
As I watched Democrats congratulate themselves, it was difficult to feel celebratory. Passage of the Stupak amendment — which bars a government-run insurance plan from offering abortion *and* prohibits women who receive government insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that include abortion coverage — sucked a lot of the energy out of the room.
As Princeton professor Melissa Harris Lacewellsaid on Twitter, “Stupak feels like Prop 8 [which overturned same-sex marriage in California the same night President Obama was elected]. When the ‘win’ is accompanied by legislation that attacks the most marginal it doesn’t feel like a win.”
For a look at how each House member voted, check out this Washington Post graphic. You can sort the list by how much money each member has received in campaign contributions from the health industry and by the percent of people without health insurance in each district . The New York Times does a nice job of showing the geography of the vote (mouseover the states to reveal individual districts).
The House is debating the Stupak amendment limiting access to abortion services — you can watch it on C-SPAN.org, or follow along on the Twitters (hashtag #stupak), where many of us are quoting the representatives for and against. I’m @cmc2
And in case the current House bill’s provisions on abortion are in doubt, read Maggie Mahar’s analysis: “The fact of the matter is that the House bill contains more than two dozen references to abortion and virtually all of them describe how insurers can restrict or deny coverage for the procedure.”
Update: Amendment passed 240-194-1 (Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona cast the lone “present” vote). A surprising number of Democrats – 64 — joined Republicans in passing the amendment. View the roll call here.
Jodi Jacobson just posted a piece at RH Reality Check that begins:
Tonight, with the aide of some 60 Democrats, women’s rights were effectively negated by the US Congress as the House passed the Stupak amendment to HR 3200, the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009.
More in-depth analysis of how we got here is forthcoming. But one thing is clear: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) apparently is running the US government, aided by a cadre of “faith-based advocacy groups,” the House Democratic leadership, the White House and members of the Senate.
Remember, this amendment is not a done deal. It still has to pass Senate and then survive the conference committee, and women’s groups are already mulling action in the weeks to come. But what a sad day it is when the only way to gain health care coverage is to lose a legitimate, legal health care procedure.
Another distressing point: The New York Times reports that only one male lawmaker — Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York — joined women who spoke against the amendment on the House floor. A correction is in order: My own Congressman here in Chicago, Mike Quigley, also spoke out (cheers!). But that may have been it.
Here, from the Times, are bits of what other lawmakers said during the debate:
Representing the abortion-rights segments of the Democratic membership, Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado called the amendment a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” that would deny women access to care. Representative Lois Capps of California argued that the underlying bill already prohibited federal financing of abortions. The amendment, she said, “Actually restricts coverage of a legal medical procedure.”
“Not one other medical procedure is singled out for rationing” in the larger bill, she said.
Others contended that this amendment would result in women having to go out and buy insurance that would cover such a procedure, a prospect one lawmaker scoffed at, saying a woman does not plan for an unplanned pregnancy.
Representative Nita Lowey, Democrat of New York, called it “a disappointing distraction” from the main event. Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, said the amendment would take women “one step back” toward the dark days of back-alley abortions. Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said, “We should not be injecting this divisive and polarizing issue into our debate.”
And the full speech by Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois:
This Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes way beyond current law. It says a woman cannot purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars — even middle-class women using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public or private insurance plan in the new Health Care Exchange.
Her only option is to buy a seperate insurance policy that covers an abortion — a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman plans an unplanned pregnancy.
This amendment is a radical departure from current law that will result in million of women losing the coverage they already have. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not for further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a disservice and an insult to millions of women throughout the country, and I urge a NO vote on this amendment.
These strong responses ultimately weren’t enough to kill the amendment, but they did serve as a reminder of the urgency of electing more pro-choice women to Congress. Anyone else have points to share?
The House is expected to vote today on a $1.055 trillion health care package that would expand coverage for up to 36 million people — but first there will be a vote on an amendment that severely limits abortion coverage in a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies.
After a back-room fight last night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow the amendment proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). It reads:
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
If you are reading this on Saturday, stop. Call your representatives and tell them this amendment is unacceptable. Go, now. We’ll wait. [Update: See this list of 11 representatives who are on the fence. These members, in particular, need to hear from you.]
It looks likes the amendment has enough votes to pass may be a close vote, and lawmakers need to know that a health care bill that tosses out a legal medical procedure used by millions of women every year is unacceptable.
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein writes:
The amendment is expected to pass with relative ease. Republicans will join with anti-choice Democrats to push it over the finish line. Once the amendment passes, the bill is cleared for a vote, and all parties expect that vote to succeed. Today looks likely to end with a historic, and important, vote. A vote that is a first step towards helping more than 30 million people secure health-care coverage, and making sure hundreds of millions are better protected from the vagaries of the insurance industry. But Stupak’s amendment is a bitter start. It is, however, not the end. Even if it muscles into the House bill, it will also have to pass in the Senate, and then survive conference, before it becomes law.
Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky told C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” that she’ll vote for the bill’s passage today, even with the Stupak amendment, but would opposed the final bill if the amendment survives the conference committee.
“If that language were in the final final bill, I certainly couldn’t support it,” Schakowsky said.
Plus: This morning, members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus went to the microphone, one by one, to explain how the overall health care bill would benefit women. Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia responded with a stream of “I object. I object. I object.” It got ugly.
Here’s a five-minute video showing what went down; if you’re short for time, below is the “I object” mashup created by Media Matters.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
