Cooler heads prevailing on debate over abortion
Despite the substantial expansion of health care access in the historic health care reform bill passed by the House of Representatives in November, a final amendment added at the 11th hour rolls back an important women’s health service
The amendment, sponsored by Democrat Bart Stupak from Michigan, would deny millions of women access to abortion services, a benefit now included in about 80 percent of private insurance plans.
Fortunately, the U.S. Senate did not allow a fight over abortion to derail progress on health care reform.
The Senate bill contains a compromise on abortion policy that reflects the status quo and current law; it prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion but still allows women to use their own money to buy the coverage they need.
We know few issues are as politically challenging as abortion, so compromise is essential if we are to achieve the goal of expanded access to health care for all. This abortion-neutral language is supported by Congress members on both sides of the abortion issue and was also included in the original House bill. It is a fair solution that doesn’t favor either side and ensures that the abortion debate does not stall health care reform.
It is time for anti-abortion zealots to stop using health reform as a vehicle to restrict women’s constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion services. By playing politics with women’s health, anti-abortion advocates could very well bring health care reform to a grinding halt, which would be disastrous for us all—especially those who need reform the most.
As we move through the Senate debate and into the conference committee process, let’s urge Congress to honor the president’s promise that the American people who like their present health care coverage can keep it.
Women must be able to decide what kind of insurance coverage is best for them and their families.
The final health care reform bill must contain the Senate’s abortion compromise and reject any attempt to make women worse off under reform than they are in the current system.
Patricia Finder-Stone, MS, RN, is a member of Health Care for America Now-Wisconsin, a coalition of dozens of organizations in the health care, labor and progressive communities advocating for affordable, quality health care for everyone in America. HCAN’s Web site is healthcareforamericanow.org.
Dec 14, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have no idea where you come up with the fact that the Senate language is the “status quo” and “current law”.
I disagree with the current Senate language on abortion because it goes BEYOND the current federal regulations of funding abortions. I am a federal retiree and for decades as a federal employee I have only been offered insurance that covers abortion for the life of the mother, rape or incest. There is no current provisions in any, not one, of the numerous policies offered to the "millions" of government employees to allow the insurance company to offer “Elective Abortion” coverage if they segregate the premiums we personally pay from the portion paid by the federal government. If the Insurance policy does offer “Elective Abortion” coverage they can not be offered to federal employees through the government. The current federal policy which has been in effect for more than 30 years is much closer to the Stupak language then the Senate language. This is about “WHO PAYS FOR THE ABORTION” not the legality of abortion. Neither the Stupak or Nelson amendments make even one more abortion illegal that is currently legal.
What the Senate is asking us to support is to have federal dollars directly or indirectly going to Insurance Policies that cover “Elective Abortion”. One example of many abortions this Pro-Life Democrat would find extremely objectionable is Sex Selection abortions, completely legal in the USA, where the only reason to abort a completely healthy fetus is because it is the wrong gender. News reports say there are thousands of these abortions performed each year in the USA and the number is growing. Another example is when a person who decides to abort a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more times, the current Senate language would allow insurance payment. Per planned parenthoods statistics there are more than 70,000 abortions each year performed on woman who are aborting for 4 or more times. Some may not personally feel there should be restrictions on these types of abortions so be it, BUT DO NOT ASK ME to have my tax dollars be involved directly or indirectly in paying for them or any other abortions of completely healthy developing children.
Dec 14, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
From the START of these proceedings, the "progressives" have been trying to force every taxpayer to pay for every abortion in the country--but it's only the conservatives that are interested in changing the status quo?? Give me a break!
Dec 14, 2009 at 5:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
lol...so it's not just republicans that just say no.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.