Home > Opinion > Should the Stupak Amendment on Abortion Funding Be Part of the Healthcare Bill?

Should the Stupak Amendment on Abortion Funding Be Part of the Healthcare Bill?

Reader Comments
Back to article

the hyde amendment, to the chagrin of those who are pro-choice, actually complements roe in a legal sense.
roe dictates the right to privacy. people, legally, are not allowed to interfere in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy because it's nobody else's business. but hyde KEEPS THE PUBLIC OUT of that decision. women who choose abortion are really hard pressed to say "Butt out!!!....but you can PAY FOR IT!".
just because women have the right to abortion and it is a feminist issue, does not inherently make it a HEALTHCARE issue in each and every instance. not all choices people make with their own bodies are necessarily related to their health, and that is why health insurance, for as scummy as the industry is, doesn't cover everything. this is the conflation of "wants" with "needs".

middlegrounder of CO 1:52AM March 27, 2010

Inserting abortion in the health care discussion is out of place. The Catholic Bishops have joined right wing Protestants on the abortion band wagon. Abortion along with homosexuality have become central themes in the theology of those who espouse Christianity. Christianity is supposed to follow Christ's teachings but these are two subjects about which Christ had little or nothing to say while he spoke hundreds of times about helping the poor and the ailing. If these people were true Christians they would ease back on the abortion propaganda and stick to Christ's message. Abortion and homosexuality are hot button and emotionsal issues to fill the collection plate and take peoples minds off real issues of society.

Kenneth Viste of ID 11:30PM December 12, 2009

It really gets to me when people equate abortion to health care. Except in cases of serious danger to the mother's life or physical health, abortions have nothing to do with health care. What they do concern is the mother's Roe v. Wade right to kill her baby up to a somewhat poorly defined point in his or her development. No one should have to pay directly or indirectly for killing a baby.

Robert Frary of NM 5:36PM December 11, 2009

“I don’t want my tax dollars used for abortions!”
I’ve heard that comment quite a bit lately during discussions on health care reform.
Why single out abortion care?
The response is often, “Women should accept personal responsibility for their choices. I shouldn’t have to pay for them.”
Well, based on this argument we should not have to pay for coverage that provides health care for those suffering with smoking-related illnesses — cancer, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nor should we have to pay for coverage for alcohol-related illnesses – liver disease, pancreatitis, or recovery program costs. Ditto, heart disease and diabetes linked to poor food choices, obesity and sedentary life styles.
Don't even get me started on the issues surrounding universal insurance coverage for Viagra.
This is a slippery slope. As a society where do we draw the line between so-called “morality issues” and medical services? Who decides what is careless and what is covered?
Certainly, abortion is a difficult and morally complicated issue for many people. However, we cannot allow the personal beliefs of some to determine health policy for all.
Who pays?
Well, that depends on whether you’re talking about public funding or private funding for abortion care.
Let’s start with public money. For the last 30 years federal funds have not been used for abortion care (except in the case of rape, incest or threats to the woman’s life). This means that Medicaid recipients, federal government employees, U.S. military personnel and their families’ health insurance are denied coverage for abortion care. This abortion ban, known as the Hyde amendment, has been included in annual appropriations bills for decades in Congress.
As you’re reading this, Congress is debating the Stupak amendment which is more far reaching and restrictive than Hyde. The Stupak amendment seeks to deny the use of private money for abortion care, not just public money. This amendment will strip women of abortion care coverage they currently have in the private marketplace. Right now, the majority of employer-based health insurance plans already cover basic reproductive health care, including abortion.
This means that women will be worse off after health care reform than they are now. The Stupak amendment would severely restrict access to abortion coverage in the newly created health care exchange. It undermines the ability of millions of women to purchase private health insurance that covers abortion, even if they pay for all or most of the premiums with their own money. Enrollees in the public plan would also pay premiums with their own money, yet the public plan would be forbidden from offering abortion care as part of its benefits package.
This proposal gets even worse. If women want coverage for abortion services, the Stupak amendment requires they buy a separate policy, a “rider,” before an unplanned pregnancy. Who plans an unplanned pregnancy? This is ridiculous and discriminatory. We don’t expect people to purchase supplemental coverage just in case they might get cancer.
What’s the bottom line?
The Stupak amendment is a giant step backward for women and bad policy.
What’s really going on?
Women’s reproductive rights are being used as a bargaining chip for health care reform. We live in a pluralistic society and must not let our citizens and politicians be bullied by powerful interest groups seeking to dictate public policy based on one religious viewpoint.

Linda Scharf of NY 3:50PM December 08, 2009

I am furious that Stupak and Stupak-like violence to the U. S. Constitution takes so much time, energy, and money that could be used to promote health and happiness. Fight on I will until reproductive justice prevails.

Robert Hunter of NY 2:35PM December 08, 2009

At one time, when rational thought reigned, there was a seperation of church and state. In our county, not everyone is the same religion or holds the same beliefs. So why then, do a minority of religious right thinkers feel they should be able to dictate their beliefs to the majority of Americans who do not hold those same beliefs? Our legislators should make decisions based upon the majority wishes not those who pay them off through radical, right wing lobbyists. All choices should be available to the women of this country (whether they choose to take advantage of them or not) and insurance, whether private or governmental should pay for it. ABortion should be a personal decision made between the woman and her doctor. Period. Politics have no place in these decisions.

Diane Parnell of FL 9:06AM December 08, 2009

I am sick and tired of a bunch of religious potentates who know nothing about human sexuality attempting to impose their views on all the people of the US. Let them go back to abusing little boys and keep away from adult sex.

Leonard Lash of FL 1:24PM December 07, 2009

Please be aware that this amendment also affects couples who have PLANNED a pregnancy. If something goes terribly wrong (a fetal abnormality, etc) and the pregnancy must be terminated, the procedure won't be covered by insurance if Stupak is written into the health care bill.

NSB of NJ 10:20AM December 07, 2009

In reading some of these comments, I wonder....how exactly does the amendment invade women's bodies? the amendment isn't making abortion illegal..right? So how is it taking away the choice? Being a woman, I don't see why every person who is for the amendment should be categorized as ani-women. Nobody is telling women what to do with their bodies. No one objects when women get implants 5 sizes too large for their frames, or purchases a permanent surpised expression. It's their choice and they have to PAY FOR IT. It's a fact that contraceptives are offered at little or no cost to both males and females. How about avoiding the issue of religion and anti-feminist slanders, and see the issue for what it is. People contributing to the alreading declining sense of responsibility. Every generation becomes more and more lazy. Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions anymore. They kill it, bury it or blame it on someone else. If you can't pop a pill, stick a patch, get a shot, insert a ring, or lay still for a plastic IUD, or carry rubbers..don't have sex. If you have sex anyway, be prepared to take responsibility for your hot night. This amendment should be added. It's your right to abortion...the law says so....therefore you have the right to pay for it too!

JC of CA 11:18PM December 04, 2009

This amendment invades women's bodies and denies them freedom. 1/3 of all the women in the US have had an abortion. What gives Stupak, and Nelson, and the other anti-choice and anti-women fanatics the right to tell women what they should do with their own bodies? "Oh, we just don't want to pay for it." Well people, there are lots of things in the federal budget that others don't want to pay for, and they are truly immoral things like occupying other countries and building weapons of genocide.
So just get over it. Abortion is a woman's right.
And by the way, how do the Catholic Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention, and various other religious organizations that are subsidized with tax exemptions, get away with political lobbying against abortion rights? They should be taxed like the political organizations they are.

Howard Winant of CA 7:40PM December 04, 2009