Pro-Choice Caucus Pretending to Study Senate Bill
I don’t mean to be that cute about it, but Roll Call reported yesterday that the Pro-Choice caucus was “studying” the Senate bill and determining whether it went beyond the Hyde Amendment.
The issue of abortion is still fracturing the Caucus, with a handful of lawmakers pledging to vote against the measure for language they say doesn’t go far enough in restricting taxpayer funding of the procedure and others threatening to oppose it because they believe the same provision too tightly limits access. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) — a Chief Deputy Whip and leading abortion-rights supporter — still needs to review the Senate-passed approach to determine whether it passes muster, said her chief of staff, Lisa Cohen. She signaled if the Colorado Democrat decides it goes further than current law in denying access to abortions, she will oppose the bill and rally other abortion-rights supporters to do the same unless leaders pledge to address their concerns later.
But Pelosi on Monday reiterated that abortion and immigration language — another hot-button issue that’s divided Members — cannot be changed in a reconciliation bill, and she said that she is not considering offering future votes on abortion or immigration in return for Members’ support.
It’s hard to quantify “current law” in this context. Because we know that the segregation of funds in the Senate bill is meant to stigmatize abortion services coverage and make it cumbersome for insurers, and we know that states can opt out of such coverage in their state exchanges. The NYT rounded that up in an excellent editorial the other day. We also know that the exchanges are set to expand over time. So the burdensome rules governing exchange plans will eventually cover all plans, and even before then, there will be significant spillover effects. Your insurance will, over time, not cover abortion services, and that could include costly “chemical abortions” or D&E, which run in the thousands of dollars.
People can choose to support the bill despite this, the biggest rollback in abortion access since Roe v. Wade, on the grounds that increases in total health care access will limit abortions, or because women’s health will improve, or whatever other reason. But don’t pretend to “study” the issue. We know exactly what the Senate bill would accomplish, taking a legitimate medical procedure and making it taboo. Nobody’s leg injury is uncovered because people are uncomfortable about “paying taxpayer money” for leg injuries. Only women’s health gets treated this way.
Tags: abortion, Diana DeGette, Health care, Nelson language, reproductive rights
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
about 4 months ago
Abortion is horrible.
Just because some cord hasn't been severed, does that mean a fetus isn't human?
And this "sentient" stuff…. Well, if the fetus isn't "sentient", then why is the baby?
about 4 months ago
There is no actual federal right to be free from laws that restrict abortions, but the Supreme Court says that there is a "penumbra" in the federal constitution (Amendment IX) that "magically" applied, at least until it's overturned and the right returned to the jurisdiction of the states.
about 2 months ago
this is a touchy subject to everyone right now as far as me I feel there should definitely be something done I am one of the hard working Americans with no insurance. I just don't understand why they have to make the process so much harder than it has to be. for example the poor people get medicare (gov. owned) and the rich people well they don't need insurance they can just pay for it. I just don't understand the medicare issue, like who pays for the poor people to get medicare (taxpayers) which is so much less than if we would pay out of pocket for insurance so why cant we just get a form of medicare and pay for it ourselves for regular doctor visits and prescriptions. as far as for all the major hospitalizations we could get the regular insurance.