In a previous post, DJ asked the question:

What are the practical economic impacts of the Stupak amendment limiting coverage of abortions? There are some persuasive politics at play, but will this have a measurable “real world” impact on plans, providers or patients?

Let’s take a look. First, regarding the bigger picture, this amendment does not limit the current legal status of abortion. The amendment allows for elective abortions to be fully covered under private insurance plans and for individuals who receive affordability credits to purchase plans that cover elective abortions.

What the amendment does prohibit is public option funds from being used to perform abortions, with the usual exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

However, pro-choice advocates argue that the amendment places an undue burden on women who seek to have legal abortions. The Washington Post summarizes it this way:

Under that language, abortion coverage would be unavailable not only to working-class women buying coverage with government subsidies, but probably also to women buying coverage on the new marketplace without federal assistance. The amendment suggests that women could buy separate “riders” covering abortions, but abortion-rights supporters say it is offensive to require a separate purchase for coverage of a medical procedure that for most women is unexpected.

Next, let’s look at the politics at play here. There was a lot of pressure from religious groups, especially the Catholic bishops, and conservative groups to not include abortion coverage in the healthcare bill. Now, some of these groups actively oppose healthcare reform in any form, regardless of abortion coverage – in other words, they are using abortion as a means to defeat healthcare reform. However other groups, like the Catholic bishops, support healthcare reform but oppose abortion. It is this group into which many moderate Democrats fall – and where politics come into play.

Will the Stupak amendment stand in the Senate (or in final passage)? It is hard to say. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), recently said that she can live with the amendment, while 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), have vowed to vote against the final bill if the Stupak amendment is retained.

We know that “pro-choice” Senators outnumber “pro-life” Senators – but will both sides stand uncompromising and potentially block the passage of the bill? The political reality is that the passage of healthcare reform could come down to the issue of abortion.

This leads me to pose a few questions:

–Can healthcare reform take place as long as there are divisive issues like abortion or immigration involved in the debate?

–What precedent does this abortion debate set for future healthcare debates?

–To repeat DJ’s question, “will this have a measurable ‘real world’ impact on plans, providers or patients?”

On a final note, it will be interesting to see how President Obama responds, keeping in mind his words from his Notre Dame speech:

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.

Here are the statements released by NARAL and National Right to Life concerning the Stupak amendment:

NARAL Press Release
NRLC Press Release

Leave a Reply