Health Care Passed in House, Women Used As Political Poker Chip

by Jen Nedeau

categories: Government, Health, News, Reproductive Health

Published November 09, 2009 @ 08:22AM PT

• 3612 Views

I don't know about you, but today I have a health care hangover. After the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care Act this weekend, which include the vitriolic Stupak-Pitts amendment, my emotional and mental well has been completely drained.

While the 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the bill, the battles that occurred on Saturday offered a sobering reality of just how far we have to go before women are considered as more than a political poker chip.

But before I go on about how reproductive choice is seriously threatened by the Stupak-Pitts amendment, let's go over the positive parts of the bill that were passed on Saturday night:

• Lower taxes for gay couples who receive health benefits from employers.
• Nutrition labeling requirements for snack food sold in vending machines and many restaurants.
• A new program to teach parents how to interact with their children.
• The House legislation would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties.
• Most employers would have to provide coverage or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.
• The bill would significantly expand Medicaid and would offer subsidies to help moderate-income people buy insurance from private companies or from a government insurance plan.
• It would set up a national insurance exchange where people could shop for coverage.

While these provisions certainly make me happy that we are doing something to reform America's "sickcare" system, I am ultimately disturbed that it was passed at the expense of women's access to reproductive health.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Stupak-Pitts amendment here is a quick summary. As it stands, the amendment says that anyone who gets a federal subsidy to buy health insurance cannot buy a plan that covers abortion. What this means is that when the uninsured do buy into insurance, there will no longer be any plans that cover the legal medical procedure.  But it gets worse.  Since the plan for the uninsured is designed to open up to everyone over time, including large employers, it is likely that women will lose access to abortion coverage as part of any health insurance plan available for purchase.

Presently, more than 87 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services, but this amendment marks "a radical departure from the status quo" as Nancy Keenan said in a press release for people who pay for their own health insurance.

Hopefully it is clear by now that this amendment explicitly targets low-income women. If the Senate does not strip the bill of this amendment, it is likely that all women will have to pay out-of-pocket for an abortion, regardless of the circumstances - rape, incest, or otherwise. If you can't pay for the procedure, then you will have effectively lost your right to choose and the demographic of single mothers below the poverty line will inevitably increase.

So - who do we blame for this disaster? Unfortunately, it is the party that is supposed to be the greatest ally for women: the Democrats.

On Daily Kos, a list of the Democrats all those who voted "Yes" on the amendment, which passed 240 to 194, with one present vote. Below is a list of the Democrats who not only voted for Stupak-Pitts, but also against the Affordable Health Care Act as well:

Jason Altmire; John Barrow; John Boccieri; Dan Boren; Bobby Bright; Ben Chandler; Travis Childers; Artur Davis; Lincoln Davis; Bart Gordon; Parker Griffith; Tim Holden; Jim Marshall; Jim Matheson; Mike McIntyre; Charles Melancon; Collin Peterson; Mike Ross; Heath Shuler; Ike Skelton; John Tanner; Gene Taylor; Harry Teague.

And a visual graphic from The New York Times about the overall party split on the bill:

The Times also describes the shallow maneuvering by these Democrats, which basically says that negotiated women's rights so they could try and keep their seat:

An overwhelming majority of the Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill — 31 of the 39 — represent districts that were won by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in the 2008 presidential election, and a third of them were freshmen. Nearly all of the fourteen freshmen Democrats who voted “no” represent districts that were previously Republican and are considered vulnerable in 2010.

If anyone reading this has voted or donated to one of these Democrats, it is time to look for a new progressive candidate to challenge them in 2010.

Going forward, we can only hope the Senate makes the right moves and strips the final bill of this horrific amendment. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand expressed her position immediately after the House passed it's version:

Alternet has said that this passage was all part of the plan and "Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform."

I certainly hope this was all part of a larger plan, Pelosi. Because if not, the legacy of passing health care reform will be tainted by throwing 50 percent of the United States population under the bus.

Photo credits: New York Times, Twitter, Speaker Pelosi's Flickr Stream