Healthcare reform is inching along and if the close vote in the House is any indication of the deep split between liberals, moderates, and conservatives, then the Senate—with a higher concentration of the latter two groups—will have to dilute the bill even more to surmount a filibuster. Still, the House’s bill is not a resounding victory. It takes two steps forward and one step backward—in that for all of the great features that will expand health coverage and crack down on insurance companies, this comes at the expense of women’s reproductive rights.
While abortion coverage (along with illegal immigrant coverage) was always a contentious point of reform, the settlement over the weekend on the Stupak Amendment is not only against women’s rights, but is against working-class women’s rights. The language of the amendment denies federal funding for abortion services (an already-established provision of the law), but also denies women who are receiving subsidies from the government to purchase public or private insurance in the new Exchange from getting an abortion even if they pay out-of-pocket into their monthly premiums. A far more sensible amendment was offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) in which federal funds and private funds would be segregated in premium payments, and only the non-subsidized money would be used for the operation. However, detractors called it an accounting gimmick that could not be enforced.
The glaring irony is that small-government conservatives of both parties voted in favor of this amendment, even though it expands the reach of federal prerogative right into a woman’s physician’s office. What’s more, the vast majority of those voting for the amendment would not have voted for the final bill even if the language was not approved. But alas, the art of politics requires that a tiny fraction of lawmakers be appeased for the country as a whole to progress.
While the language makes an exception for women whose life is endangered, or who have been the victims of rape and incest, that is little consolation. A pregnancy is more than a medical condition. It is an obligation to the woman, the child’s father, and the families of both parents. But the weight of obligation is sometimes too much for women to bear. The child might be unwanted or the woman might be physically, mentally, or financially unprepared to bear such a burden. No one wants any abortion to happen, but when a woman needs more time before entering into motherhood or when she must weigh the costs of rearing a child to whom she cannot dedicate herself or her material resources, it is unfair for a group of (primarily) men to stipulate that a woman must be dying or traumatized for her to have any choice in the matter.
It makes little sense to me that this bill will bring opportunity for treatment to millions of working-class and young women—both of whom are most subject to false information and interest group tug-of-wars on the family planning front—so that if they accidentally get injured, they will be fine—but if they accidentally get pregnant, they are out of luck. Would it not be more practical to simply regulate abortion providers to ensure that women who seek the procedure are not put in jeopardy by back-alley, unlicensed abortionists? The last time I checked, the Constitution charged our government with promoting the “general welfare” of all its citizens, not simply the welfare of those who are wealthy and already have access to employer-based private coverage and who have an unbiased accounting of their options regarding reproductive rights.
While the bill should not be sunk on the basis of this one anti-woman provision, it just goes to show that sex discrimination is still acceptable by the majority of elected representatives, even if it takes away a long-established legal right.
