Community | November 11, 2009 | 33 comments

Who currently subsidizes abortion? Many pro-lifers don't know

source: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/494818/who_subsidizes_abortion

Image
WakeUpPeople
As is now widely known, added to the health care reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives was a provision barring access to abortion called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Passed with the support of sixty-four Democrats, Stupak-Pitts doesn't merely prohibit coverage of abortion in a public option. It also forbids women who receive a federal subsidy from purchasing any health insurance plan that covers the procedure, even if the abortion is paid out of a separate pool of private premium dollars (for all the background and details, see my colleague Emily Douglas' post).

If this highly regressive amendment makes its way into the legislation that Barack Obama eventually signs, millions of less affluent women who obtain access to affordable health insurance will thus join the ranks of low-income women on Medicaid, most of whom live in states that don't cover abortion procedures. The two-tiered system that dictates who in America has "choice" (more privileged women do, less affluent women do not) will be further entrenched.

But if the social consequences of Stupak-Pitts are clear, the logic is not. Supporters of the provision evidently want to assure taxpayers that they will not be forced to subsidize abortion in any way. But if they are serious about this, why haven't they drawn up an amendment abolishing tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance? As Jonathan Cohn has pointed out, this is by far the largest subsidy in health care policy today. (It is also a regressive subsidy, but that's another story.) If the employer-sponsored insurance that a worker gets happens to cover abortion – which, in roughly half the cases, it does – than that taxpayer already subsidizes abortion.

The purists who don't want any of their dollars to subsidize abortion have another problem. As Amy Sullivan of Time has observed, plenty of pro-life people likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services (in which case their premiums indirectly fund the procedure). The same goes for pro-life organizations. Sullivan did a bit of digging and found out that Focus on the Family provides its employees insurance through Principal, a company that - you guessed it - covers abortion procedures.

"If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well," Sullivan notes. "And if they don't think they do have a fungibility problem, then it would be interesting to hear why they think the set-up proposed in health reform legislation is so untenable."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/494818/who_subsidizes_abortion
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Progressive America,   Humanism,   4 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Health Care Reform,  Abortion,  2 more
  3.     
    |

33 comments // Who currently subsidizes abortion? Many pro-lifers don't know

  • Found_Avenue
    • 0
      Found_Avenue  

    • "As Amy Sullivan of Time has observed, plenty of pro-life people likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services (in which case their premiums indirectly fund the procedure). The same goes for pro-life organizations. Sullivan did a bit of digging and found out that Focus on the Family provides its employees insurance through Principal, a company that - you guessed it - covers abortion procedures."

      Brilliant.

      Before you force another woman who is going through an ectopic pregnancy to DIE in childbirth thanks to your so called " Christian Values," ya better read your OWN health insurance handbook. Suckers.

    • 2 years ago
  • opit
    • 0
      opit  

    • When you're talking about the 'logic' of people who automatically refer to 'baby-killing' and 'murder' regardless of the state of development of the fetus, you aren't dealing with the smartest bunch to begin with. The hypocrisy of that position for citizens of a nation which murders families. in their homes on a global scale is astounding.
      North of the 49th people against government subsidizing abortions ran up against resistance from physicians. They flat refused to assign the job of deciding whether or not a procedure was warranted to bureaucracy dealing with orders from on high. Every patient automatically needed it for valid medical reasons.
      Since doctors are denying the state's right to interfere with medical treatment which they claim based on need rather than protocol - prepared to deny services rather than be mandated into that route - the real nature of the claim of tyranny shows up clearly...and it's not the doctors.

    • 2 years ago
  • artyme
    • 0
      artyme  

    • Why aren't women who are raped or don't want a baby being counseled to use the morning after or abortion pills and save taxpayers a lot of money.

    • 2 years ago
  • s0uthc0ast
  • LadybugLady
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • This whole abortion issue is meant to kill reform. Don't let it side track you from the real issue which is WE NEED EVERYONE TO BE COVERED IN THIS COUNTRY BY INSURANCE!!!!!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • tomofnorthcal
    • 0
      tomofnorthcal  

    • I don't think the amendment is about abortion, its about control and about tricking conservatives to vote republican or blue-dog democrat again (even voting against their own interest, again). Plus, if you don't have enough poor population, then you don't have enough future soldiers to attack 3rd world countries and help US corporations steal more resources.

    • 2 years ago
  • royulery
    • 0
      royulery  

    • the right will never change their position on abortion. they will never compromise and you know that. is there a way the left could change and win?

    • 2 years ago
  • ThresholdBroken
  • mojojuju
    • 0
      mojojuju  
    • ThresholdBroken:

      That guy is my hero.

      I used to live right across the street from a Planned Parenthood and about once a month on Saturday mornings when I would try to sleep in, I would awake to the sounds of Pro Lifers & Pro Choicers making noise like in the video.

      It would be 8 in the morning and it was my day off from work. All I wanted was to sleep in until about 10, but the noise would begin. There were chants, megaphones, and religious hymns, and it was innocent me who was caught in the crossfire.

      I tried earplugs, and a white noise generator.

      The Pro-This and Pro-That people (that's all they were to me) were still loud enough to wake me.

      One morning, I walked out of bed and confronted some of the people holding signs. I told them I lived across the street that they were interfering with me catching up on sleep. I heard them tell me of the importance of their message and their right to demonstrate. They did not consider my right to sleep (Doesn't the Constitution say something about a person's right to sleep in on Saturday?).

      I told them they were accomplishing nothing. They didn't seem to care. They kept coming back on other Saturdays; yelling, making noise, holding signs, and passing out literature. The same people arguing with the other same people.

      I asked an off duty police officer who was there to control the crowd if there was anything that could be done to stop these angry people from waking me in the mornings.

      "Nothing can be done. It's their right."

      I'm glad I don't live across from the Planned Parenthood anymore. I now get sleep.

    • 2 years ago
  • mojojuju
    • 0
      mojojuju  

    • If I kill your mother, I'm a murderer.
      And if you kill your mother, you're a murderer.
      If I kill your unborn child, then I'm a murderer.
      But if you kill your unborn child, it's your "right to choose".

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  
    • mojojuju:

      You obviously don't respect human rights, and therefore you are communist.
      Point blank.

      Depriving human rights is not up for debate because it is a optional choice for all women.

      You don't control them, furthermore, a new fetus isn't a baby, I suppose you don't have any proof. Pitiful.
      Would you stop switching abortion for killings?

      Your religion is getting in your way.

    • 2 years ago
  • mojojuju
    • 0
      mojojuju  
    • mojojuju:

      I seems the subject of abortion makes you feel uncomfortable.

      Also, I am not communist, nor am I religious. Oh, and I didn't vote for Bush or McCain (just in case you'd want to throw that in as well.)

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  
    • mojojuju:

      I'm not looking for political stances..

      Its plain and simple, depriving women's rights is subject to banning abortion..

      No twists around it, censoring one's rights can lead you to being a communist.

      Religious or not.
      Just sayin'

    • 2 years ago
  • jozeetwo
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • ThresholdBroken
    • ThresholdBroken  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  
    • ThresholdBroken:

      You obviously don't respect human rights, and therefore you are communist.
      Point blank.

      Depriving human rights is not up for debate because it is a optional choice for all women.

      You don't control them, furthermore, a new fetus isn't a baby, I suppose you don't have any proof. Pitiful.

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • ThresholdBroken
    • 0
      ThresholdBroken  
    • ThresholdBroken:

      Go to youtube and search for 4 month old abortion in 4D ultrasound.

      and I've seen the cadavers. I bet you never have and never will coward+.

      you were never aborted........ for countless millenniums your lineage has survived for you to exist......

      and you'll discard the inconvenient you created out of recklessness.

      I'm absolutely not religious........ but I know karma is a bitch.

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
    • 0
      metalcookiesxy70  
    • ThresholdBroken:

      So you accept my statement?
      Good. Now I know you WANT to deprive human rights..
      Of course I saw it, you act like I've never seen it, ever heard of investigation??
      Bloodslaughter, I know what that is, its easy to look a bloodslaughter, but that won't change the ideal statement I told you from before.

      Human rights, get it?
      Abortions are very personal decisions that are made by the mother, and if its legal or not, people will still do it....Face the fact..

    • 2 years ago
  • mojojuju
  • stolenapples
    • 0
      stolenapples  
    • ThresholdBroken:

      I still don't understand all this depopulation story, In Europe everybody lives fine, America had a fucked-up system and Obama's doing something about it. 4000 people died each year because they didn't have insurance, Obama's giving those people insurance. The economy is going up even though nobody is feeling it. America has to be proud about it's president.

    • 2 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • WakeUpPeople
  • Average_JoeMN
  • JeremyTG77
  • eddiemac
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  

    • When are prolifers going to understand that their attempts to abolish abortion don't do anything of the sort. All they do is abolish SAFE abortions. Poor people are still going to have them backalley style.

      I really like the point the article made about choice being not a question of freedom but of affordability. I thought the civil rights era brought to light the obvious fact that "separate but equal" is never equal.

    • 2 years ago
  • JeremyTG77
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • Abortion is protected by law. The majority of insurance companies cover it. If you oppose reproductive rights, you can choose a private insurance company that does not cover it. If you can't afford private insurance, you will have to contribute to your company's plan, or go without health insurance. As it is currently, most pro-lifers do not have the means to avoid contributing to abortions. This article states that even a pro-life organization pays premiums to a pro-choice insurance provider

      People need to remember that the public option is an option. If you don't like that your premiums will go to abortions, don't buy into the public option. Prior to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, there was specific language in the bill that guaranteed that no tax dollars would be used for abortions. Only premiums from public option participants would be used. The problem is that govt can't make it legal and deny it at the same time.

    • 2 years ago
  • mykuh
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • mykuh:

      It's either them or you. God help us if it was you.

      "I hate the way the United States operates and wish I could move out of the country."

      Ain't nobody got a gun to your head.

    • 2 years ago
  • eddiemac
    • 0
      eddiemac  
    • mykuh:

      So with your logic you would rather just kill our unborn.
      I also find it interesting that wanting to encourage life is a theological issue not a moral one. Why can't the unborn have rights? Follow my logic here lemmings, why don't we put abortion in the hands of the doctors and scientists? Life ends when your brainwaves stop and your heart stops beating. Why wouldn't a HUMAN have rights when it's alive [when it's heart starts beating and it has brain waves]?
      And get off of the point that the fetus is dependent on it's mother thing because as a species we are have the weakest babies that are dependant on our mother for the longest period of time for survival.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
  • mirror
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • Hmmm... I'm willing to bet that congress' insurance plans cover abortion. Aren't we therefore paying for it already in this regard?

    • 2 years ago
  • pandaburger
    • 0
      pandaburger  
    • good_stuff:

      I doubt anyone in congress has had an abortion, or at least it's probably very rare for a lot of obvious factors.

      Also it wouldn't be the best political move either, you'd get most conservatives and some religious liberals quite upset.

    • 2 years ago
  • Progresshiv
  • My_America
    • 0
      My_America  
    • Image
    • Progresshiv:

      It is not just a Theological decision.

      If they want to lower costs of healthcare then do not provide elective procedures.in the coverage of ObamaCare. Abortioin is an elective procedure unless the mother's health is in danger (and that remains covered).

      An Abortion costs on average between $600-$1200 and should be paid for by the women who elect this procedure.

    • 2 years ago
  • stolenapples
    • 0
      stolenapples  
    • Progresshiv:

      In Italy we always have enormous problems because of the Pope and his cardinals who can't stop breaking balls about this or that. Now everybody's talking of maybe one of the most stupid things: the crucifix in the italian classroom. Should there be a crucifix? Yes because we're catholic! No because we're multi-ethnical! I say: Who gives a rat's ass! Theology always gets in the way of politics, let's work to keep it out of there. The Muslims, Sunni, are great at keeping religion away and have been doing this since the first successor of Mohammed. Maybe we should use them as a model in this case(And maybe in others).

    • 2 years ago
  • noxidereus
more from Community:
from the community

top videos