A question of health—and equality
BOSTON — My favorite moment so far in the health care debate was when Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl argued against mandating maternity benefits as part of a basic insurance coverage.
“I don’t need maternity care,” he blurted out.
At which point, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow quipped, “I think your mom probably did.”
For that matter, so did his wife and daughter. But never mind. We had one brief glimpse into the mind of a politician who doesn’t quite see women’s health concerns as equal to his own.
Michelle Obama referred to this connection between health care and equality when she told a group of women that overhauling the system was “the next step” in women’s advancement for opportunity. Women are not only less likely to have insurance at work but more likely to face discrimination from insurance companies. They also, she added, can be denied coverage just for the pre-existing condition of having had a C-section.
It is becoming obvious that just having a female reproductive system is a pre-existing condition in the health care debate. The up-and-coming sticking point is abortion. The Senate Finance Committee beat back some restrictions, but the question for Congress is still whether the “reform” that is supposed to increase coverage will instead reduce it. Will women who now have coverage for abortion in their private plans end up losing it?
In the days before Roe v. Wade, we had a hodgepodge of different state laws governing abortion. The argument in favor of abortion rights was not just about equality between men and women, but equality along economic lines. It was unjust, many argued, to have a system in which a wealthier woman could find and afford a safe abortion while a poorer woman had to put herself at risk.
After Roe, abortion opponents regrouped and went looking for a restriction that would appeal to the ambivalent middle. They latched onto the idea that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to pay for abortions. This not only stigmatized abortion, separating it from “legitimate” health care, it reintroduced a two-tier health system for poor women on Medicaid.
Today, those tiers have expanded. Women on Medicaid can only get abortion coverage when states pick up the bill. Women in the military have no coverage, not even if they were raped. Doctors on the military payroll aren’t allowed to provide abortions even for soldiers who can pay their own way. Nor is there coverage for federal employees.
So what now? We were told that health care reform would be “abortion neutral,” that it wouldn’t change the shaky status quo, or rile the troops in the abortion wars. One compromise in the House proposed by California Rep. Lois Capps would keep it that way. Abortion would be neither mandated nor banned. There’d be no federal funds in subsidized plans for lower income people; the money would be segregated.
But it turns out that finding neutrality in the abortion wars is elusive. We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats—most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan—demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health care exchange.
And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.
So let’s regroup. The first target was poor women on Medicaid, then came women in the military, now women needing subsidized plans. Next?
“The millions of women who presently have private insurance would lose it if they are successful in putting in an all-out ban,” says Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
This isn’t supposed to happen. The pro-choice president said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”
Not if folks like Stupak get their way.
No woman expects to have an abortion. But one in every three women has one by age 45. That’s a whole lot of women to stigmatize—or ignore.
The irony is that this attempt to enforce a federal moral rule over everyone’s health comes from precisely the people who are most angry at the idea of a government takeover of health care.
This leads me to my second most favorite moment in the health care debate: when Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky loudly railed, “I do not support a government takeover of the health care system,” and then fell asleep.
I’m sure he’s covered for narcolepsy.
Ellen Goodman is a columnist for the Boston Globe. Her e-mail address is ellengoodman1@me.com.
Oct 6, 2009 at 6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Um, dub- what about the majority of second trimester abortions that are due to HELLP or eclampsia? You know, the pregnancy complication where a woman has to deliver/abort a pre-term fetus immediately or suffer a stroke, kidney, and liver failure ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
Also, dub, once a first trimester fetus is declared a person and protected by law, what about the fact that a miscarriage can be suspect? After all, if abortions are illegal, a uterus that has a dead baby it is a crime scene, no? Do you support women suffering miscarriages being interrogated and drug tested and questioned?
It has been proposed in Tennessee- legislation was voted on to drug test and question every woman suffering a miscarriage.
Oct 4, 2009 at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gee, thanks for changing the subject. Nice deflection, dub160.
Oct 4, 2009 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
dub190: If O'Reilly is not sorry for what he said about young Hornbeck, then he is no real man.
Oct 4, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
I used to watch O'Reilly on occasion, but I lost all respect for the guy when he verbally attacked Shawn Hornbeck. Unfortunately, O'Reilly refuses to retract his statements or apologize to the teen-ager.
Oct 3, 2009 at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
dub160: Once again, I learned that technique from a rightie.
Oct 3, 2009 at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Will the Amish be fined or jailed for not taking part in Obamacare?
Oct 3, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
dub190: Put down the pipe and walk away.
Oct 3, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The irony is that this attempt to enforce a federal moral rule over everyone’s health comes from precisely the people who are most angry at the idea of a government takeover of health care." This is so funny because it's so true! The people who freak out over Universal Health Care for ALL will be the first to say BURN IN H*LL Baby KILLER~! Guess what, 4,000 die a day due to little or no health insurance. This will keep happening folks until there is real change. Every 17 seconds there is a foreclosure being filed and the number one cause is medical debt. www.singlepayeraction.org
Oct 2, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
From PubMed.gov (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779...)
Low cancer incidence rates in Ohio Amish.
Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
BACKGROUND: The Amish have not been previously studied for cancer incidence, yet they have the potential to help in the understanding of its environmental and genetic contributions. The purpose of this study was to estimate the incidence of cancer among the largest Amish population. METHODS: Adults from randomly selected households were interviewed and a detailed cancer family history was taken. Using both the household interview data and a search of the Ohio cancer registry data, a total of 191 cancer cases were identified between the years 1996 and 2003. RESULTS: The age-adjusted cancer incidence rate for all cancers among the Amish adults was 60% of the age-adjusted adult rate in Ohio (389.5/10(5) vs. 646.9/10(5); p < 0.0001). The incidence rate for tobacco-related cancers in the Amish was 37% of the rate for Ohio adults (p < 0.0001). The incidence rate for non-tobacco-related cancers in the Amish was 72% of the age-adjusted adult rate in Ohio (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Cancer incidence is low in the Ohio Amish. These data strongly support reduction of cancer incidence by tobacco abstinence but cannot be explained solely on this basis. Understanding these contributions may help to identify additional important factors to target to reduce cancer among the non-Amish.
Oct 2, 2009 at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
From Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/conten...)
In the 20th century the Old Order Amish population has grown very rapidly. In 1900 there were approximately 3,700 Amish in North America. By 2008 the estimated figure had increased from 127,800 (adult membership approximately 56,200) in 1990 to 231,000 in 2008. According to sociologist Julia Erickson and her colleagues, the Amish are among the fastest-growing populations in the world. They prohibit the use of contraception and have low infant mortality rates. The average Amish woman can expect to have at least seven live births.
Oct 2, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
From Amish.net (http://www.amish.net/faq.asp)
Question: What is the average life expectancy of Amish men and women and what is the number one cause of death in the Amish communities?
Answer: It is the same as for all persons in the United States, no different than for other groups of people. Answer coordinated by THE BUDGET [Editor: According to US Government Statistics, the average life expectancy for Caucasian men is 74.3 and for Caucasian women is 79.9. The leading cause of death is heart disease.]
Oct 2, 2009 at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
officerfriendly: Interesting postings about the Amish. How do their life expectancy, infant fatality, and other rates compare to the non-Amish in the United States?
Oct 2, 2009 at 8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andrew Jackson: More likely, from Fox News.
Oct 2, 2009 at 7:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jeez, Pete, Where in hell do you get your information, the RNC?
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Amish now number an estimated 227,000 nationwide, up from 123,000 in 1992, according to researchers from Elizabethtown College's Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Will the Amish be fined or jailed for not taking part in Obamacare?
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
How do the Amish feel about seeking medical attention?
* The Amish believe in folk medicine: faith healing, pow-wows, and herbal treatments. They believe that a higher level of medical science is simply not necessary. However, they also believe that good health (mental and physical) is a gift from God, and needs to be taken care of. They believe that medicine helps, but God heals.
* The Amish are very careful medical consumers. If an Amish person is seeking medical treatment, it indicates that it is an emergency or a very important concern.
* The Amish religion does not forbid its people to seek modern medical care. When necessary, the Amish can have surgical procedures, dental work, anesthesia, or blood transfusions. Organ transplants are permitted, except for the heart. The Amish believe the heart is the soul of the body. (Exception: Pediatric patients who have not been baptized can receive a heart transplant.)
* In some Amish districts, all forms of insurance are discouraged, including medical insurance. The Amish believe insurance is a "worldly product," and purchasing it shows a lack of faith in God.
* The Amish pay little attention to preventative care. It is hard to impress upon them the importance of immunizations, cancer screenings, PAP smears, and mammograms. This is largely because they believe that God heals them, but also because they might not be able to afford preventative care.
* Many Amish will refuse an autopsy.
* The Amish do not believe in birth control.
* Most Amish need to have church permission to go to a hospital because the church pays for such care.
* Amish discourage the use of Life Flight helicopters.
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Incredibly ironic that those who are so vehemently against health care reform because they're afraid it may eliminate the ability to make their OWN CHOICES will still be the most adamant to deny allowing WOMEN TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES when it comes to reproductive health care! It's time to abandon and eliminate funding for programs that are proven to NOT work (ie, abstinence-only "education") and move on to the real world with real health care provided equitably for all.
Oct 2, 2009 at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anyone who would criticize any portiion of the President's speaking abilities in light of previious eight years of incoherent bumbling and stumbling must have been asleep.
Oct 1, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
I doubt Ellen Goodman knows alot about any of the health care bills being proposed. Even Obama himself can't quote a line from any of the bills because he can't get it on a teleprompter.
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.