Tweet
The language on abortion in the original version of House health care reform bill, before it was amended on the floor, and the Senate language on abortion are very similar. Both say that:
- No federal funds will be used to pay for abortions, but as provided by the Hyde amendment, exceptions are made for rape, incest, and the life of the mother;
- Any plan that covers abortion must use money from a special segregated account funded only with private premiums to pay for the procedure;
- In every region, there must be at least one plan on the exchange that covers elective abortion (the so-called “pro-choice option”) and one plan that does not (the so-called “pro-life option”);
- There could be no discrimination against an insurance plan that does not cover abortion;
- Abortion could not be mandated as part of the minimum coverage requirements for an insurance plan.
The original House language and the Senate language did differ slightly on how the public option could cover abortion: While both would require that no federal funds are used by the public option to cover abortion beyond what is allowed in the Hyde amendment, the Senate bill does take additional steps to ensure that if elective abortion is covered by the public option, no federal funds are used and the government would bare no insurance risk.
The Stupak amendment, which was voted into the House bill, is a radical departure. It goes beyond original House and Senate language, mandating that no federal funds pay for an abortion (except those allowed by the Hyde amendment). It does not accept the idea that funds can be segregated. It prohibits federal funds from being used in any way to help operate an insurance plan that does cover abortion. If a plan uses even one federal dollar to help pay for any aspect of its overall operation, it can not cover abortion.
The Stupak amendment would technically allow for the sale of insurance plans or riders that cover abortion on the exchange–but only if no federal money even tangentially helped pay for their administrative functions. In effect, this restriction would make it practically impossible for any insurance provider to offer abortion coverage on the exchange for a variety of financial and legal reasons.
The broad language could also force many large employer-provided health insurance plans to drop the abortion coverage they already provide. The bills would provide a small amount of federal money to many large employer plans to help them pay for for things like wellness programs. Because of the Stupak amendment, this tiny drop of federal money could taint the entire insurance plan.
23 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
EPUd:
Total OT: Giuliani reportedly running for U.S. Senate and has eye on the White House. Hubris, thy name is Rudy. link.
Crumbs from the patriarchy. Hoorah.
I get it now – if the Dems don’t screw women over quite so much, it’s a big victory? Won’t be seeing me vote Dem (or GOP) in the next few general elections, it looks like.
High praise to St. Reagan for legalizing abortion in 1967 in CA. It’s the gift that just keeps giving to politicians like Stupak, decade after decade.
What I find frustrating about most of the discussion one sees/hears around this is that it starts with the assumption that the Hyde amendment is reasonable. It grants a special status to the supposedly moral opposition to abortion. When a similar exemption is made for wars of aggression I may be more accepting of Hyde, but until then, why is the objection to abortion so special.
We can expect a torrent of nonsensical pronouncements as Rudi and Palin attempt to show who’s more conservative.
Mighty hard for a politician to vote to limit the amount of voters. They have no values if they don’t respect this as a right. Anything less, you have human garbage that wants their paternalistic monopoly to continue.
Harry Reid just about has the votes to kill it, and he is working hard at it.
Because federal spending for abortion would amount to a whole fraction of a fraction of a percent of the federal budget, whereas wars and military spending amount to about 60 percent or so of the federal budget.
When abortions generate as much revenue for big corporations as war does, then there will no longer even be a debate about it.
Okay, since I want choice available to all women and I don’t want to subsidize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will make a trade: conservatives can make my tax dollars unavailable to subsidize those particular reproductive services IF they can assure me that none of my tax dollars will be used to fund either war. That seems reasonable: the Hyde Amendment allows for women to terminate pregnancies under specific circumstances, so it is legal to end a pregnancy in this country. If someone else can limit my legal rights while I pay for it, I think it is legitimate that I should be able to withdraw my financial support from initiatives that I do not approve of. Is that the way it works now?
This is REALLY simple. If it is A-OK for people to whine and complain (and prevent) about THEIR tax dollars paying for birthcontrol and abortions for people, then it is also legitimate for people to prevent THEIR tax dollars paying for wars, detention centers, the CIA, the NSA, etc.
If people get to cut out one area as a place where they get to prevent their tax dollars from being spent then that means we all get to similarly cut out our own areas.
I do not want ANY of my tax dollars to go into supporting and maintaining ANY military base outside the continental USA, for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, for the CIA, for the NSA, for the FBI (until they drop the use of “national security letters” and quit spying on what people are reading in libraries, etc). I DO want my tax dollars spent on providing abortions at will.
Utter madness. Billions and billions for death and destruction, and they have the gall to tell us they have goddamned…principals.
Does anyone know if the Constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment has been tested? It seems to me anything lhuman right should not be selectively discriminated against..
I watched a little of the panel questioning Holder and couldn’t help feeling like I was observing a witch trial in Salem. their meanness is disgusting and deplorable. We have found the evil and it is …
…as Rudi and Palin attempt to show who’s more conservative.
or who looks better in a dress…
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Jon Walker and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
OK…the question has always been: will the Democrats have the balls to stand up to the lunatic fringe and remove all the anti-abortion language in the bill since the Hyde amendment still rules?
I don’t wanna waste anymore time on this, get the language out in conference, that’s the only option at this point since no amendments are gunna prevail for either side in the Senate. On to the next fight please…we’re goin after the criminals who have profited and in some cases caused the economic meltdown. Geithner and Summers must go and a Jobs bill has gotta hit the floor of both houses before Christmas and EFCA hasta come down in January. We simply hafta start to focus on the next fight for the salvation of the economy and maybe our political system.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, SHOOT AT THE LIVE ONES!!
One thing’s for sure: Rudy wouldn’t be caught dead in waders.
His boa is much more of a fashion statement. :)
I dunno – with the right accessories – maybe.
What are the right accessories? Carrie Prejean’s dangle earrings?
and a cigar.
I”m still wondering when the idea of forcing people to buy insurance will be constitutionally challenged! You can bet it’s in the works.
This bs bill is not an answer. Single payer is the only answer.
A deal breaker.
Nothing at all is better than this.
Hey. We have a tradition to uphold in this town. What’s more important? Human rights or the tradition in this town? Come on. That one isn’t even close.