Womenstake

Pregnancy Is A Pre-Existing Condition for Expectant Dads Too

by Brigette Courtot, Policy Analyst,
National Women's Law Center

In the individual health insurance market, insurance companies are generally allowed to treat pregnancy as a “pre-existing” condition. In practice, this means that they can reject a pregnant woman’s health insurance application altogether or offer her a plan that excludes coverage for the care associated with her condition—in this case, maternity care.

Through our “A Woman is Not a Pre-Existing Condition” campaign, NWLC is working to raise awareness about this and a whole host of other discriminatory insurance industry practices that make it more difficult (or even impossible) for women to get the health care they need.

But lest you think that pregnancy complicates coverage only if you’ve got ovaries, I refer you to a recent Colorado news article featuring a healthy 41-year-old man who can’t get individual market insurance because he is an expectant father. His wife has job-based coverage, but it’s too expensive to add the family to her policy, and so he tries his luck—literally—in the individual market. He is routinely denied, and learns that the basis for his rejection is his wife’s pregnancy. 

Hold That Line: Update on Abortion in Health Reform

by Micole Allekotte, Health Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center 

As the clock ticks down on a Senate vote on Health Reform, my high school cheerleaders’ rallying cry to the defense, “HOLD—THAT—LINE!” comes to mind. Health reform will ensure insurance coverage for millions of Americans who currently must go without, so this is a very high stakes game indeed. But as we advance towards our end goal of insuring all Americans, we are also playing defense on abortion rights.

The Senate bill currently reflects a compromise between pro-choice and anti-choice forces. The compromise reflected in the current Senate language prevents all federal funds from being used for abortion, maintaining the anti-choice status quo on restrictions on federal funding for abortion. The House version of this compromise provision was changed by the Stupak amendment, which restricted abortion rights by prohibiting plans offered to subsidized individuals from including abortion coverage, even if that coverage was paid for with individuals’ private premiums. This extension of government intrusion into private insurance coverage of abortion was introduced in the Senate by Nelson, but was defeated by a vote of 54 to 45.

Unfortunately, the defeat of the Nelson amendment in the Senate is not quite the end of the game on restrictions on private coverage of abortion being snuck in through health reform. Fifty-four Senators voted to defeat the Nelson amendment and to keep the compromise language on abortion; as the clock winds down, we must continue to cheer on these Senators to hold that line. We can win the game in the Senate and pass health reform without trading away any more yards on women’s reproductive rights.

Passage of health reform that works for women in the Senate will be a major victory, but it won’t be the end of the season. After the Senate passes health reform, their will be a conference between the House and the Senate to merge their two versions of the bill. We will need the leaders in the House and the Senate to come together to pass health reform that is not held hostage to either pro-choice or anti-choice views. We agreed to keep the status quo and save a fight over changes to current law on federal funding of abortion for another season; let’s hope our elected officials can do the same, and come together to pass a bill that reflects the current Senate language on abortion, which already reflects a compromise position.

It’s been a long season, and as supporters of both health reform and the ability to buy insurance that covers abortion, it’s sometimes been a tiring fight. But the season is almost over, and now is the time to rally our energy and make sure that our legislators can hear that we are behind them in their efforts to pass health reform that doesn’t trade away insurance coverage women already have.

The Recovery Act: It’s a Wonderful Life-line

by Amy Quinn, Senior Policy Analyst,
National Women's Law Center

State-by-state, the story is the same. Difficult economic times have brought high unemployment and threatened the economic stability of families and the nation. Yet, state-by-state, there is one common guardian angel for which we can be grateful this holiday season. 

According to a new report released today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Recovery Act has lifted out of poverty thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands, of persons in each of the thirty-five states analyzed, totaling six million persons nationwide (state-level analysis was not performed for some states, due to insufficient data).

In addition, the severity of poverty was reduced for 32.7 million persons across the nation, thanks to the Act. As impressive as these numbers are, they are conservative estimates, as only seven of the Act’s many provisions were considered, representing $205 billion, or about one-fourth of the Act’s total spending. The complete report is available at http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-17-09pov.pdf.

Unemployed? Happy Holidays: Now You’re On Your Own

by Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President,
National Women's Law Center

Cross-Posted from Huffington Post.

Here’s a sobering thought for our holiday season: one million workers will become ineligible for unemployment benefits in January 2010 unless Congress reauthorizes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)’s unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance programs by the end of this month.

What a way to ring in the New Year: a vital lifeline that helped these jobless women and men keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and get medical insurance coverage will evaporate. By March the number of affected Americans could swell to more than 3.2 million workers if Congress doesn’t act.

One group of jobless workers is especially vulnerable: single mothers. The unemployment data released earlier this month show that 11.4 percent of women who head families are unemployed, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 10 percent. Since the recession began in December 2007, unemployment among women who head families has consistently been higher than the unemployment rate for men and women generally.

NWLC in the News

by Andrea Maruniak, Program Assistant,
National Women's Law Center

Washington Examiner, December 13, 2009
Credo: Nancy Duff Campbell

The Virginian-Pilot, December 13, 2009
Sexual Assault Victims Need More Help, Military Study Says

Boston Globe, December 9, 2009
Senate Rejects Stricter Abortion Rules

USA Today, December 9, 2009
Senate Rejects Abortion Amendment

Women's eNews, December 9, 2009
Senate Reform Bill Keeps Stupak at Bay, So Far

Can Women Anchors Break the Glass TV Screen?

by Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst, 
National Women's Law Center 

With George Stephanopoulos planning to leave his Sunday morning news program, "This Week," for his new role co-anchoring "Good Morning America" on weekday mornings, there is a great opportunity to make the Sunday morning shows look more like America and American politics today. While we’ve broken many gender and race barriers in politics in recent years, the Sunday morning news shows covering politics are still all anchored by white men. ABC could take a major step forward by filling the opening at "This Week" with one of the many women qualified to do the job, such as Gwen Ifill, Soledad O’Brien, Andrea Mitchell, or Michel Martin.

It is extremely frustrating to watch a male anchor discuss with his all-male panel policies affecting women, such as abortion, without any input from women themselves. It is even more frustrating to watch a male anchor fail to even cover critical women’s issues or to watch him discuss issues such as the economy or health care without even mentioning their particular impact on women.

The Sunday morning shows have come a long way in getting more diverse guests and more diverse panelists to debate the issues. But that’s not enough. We need women not only debating the agenda, but helping set the agenda -- deciding which issues to debate, what questions to ask about the issues, and who will debate the issues.

With Nancy Pelosi sitting in the House Speaker’s chair and Barack Obama sitting in the Oval Office, isn’t it long past time to have at least as much diversity among the people sitting at the anchor desk on Sunday mornings?

The Omnibus Appropriations Bill Gives Reproductive Health Advocates (Long Overdue) Cause for Celebration

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate, 
National Women's Law Center 

On Sunday, the Senate passed an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 that  gives a few of my favorite communities (namely: DC residents, comprehensive sex ed advocates, and the pro-choice community) something to celebrate. The omnibus, which passed the Senate 57-35 and includes six of the seven remaining appropriations bills for FY2010, would remove the funding restrictions that currently prohibit DC from using locally raised tax dollars to fund abortion coverage under the Medicaid program. Though the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion coverage under Medicaid except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, states are free to use their own money to provide additional abortion coverage under Medicaid — and 23 do. Arguing against the DC abortion funding ban, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) commented: "The D.C. abortion rider has created severe hardships for low income women in the District. It has singled out the District and its women for unfair and unequal treatment." Delegate Norton is spot-on.  While we’re gratified that these restrictions have finally been lifted, it’s painful to think of the damage they’ve already done.  

The omnibus also eases the restrictions on DC’s use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs, a critical intervention strategy aimed at decreasing HIV transmission among injection drug users.  This policy is particularly important for DC women, as DC has a higher AIDS rate than any state — by far. 

But there’s more. In a victory for common sense, justice, and science-based public health strategies, the omnibus provides $114 million in funding for a new evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention initiative, which replaces the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program. The initiative will be implemented and administered by the newly authorized Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) in the Office of the Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The bulk of that money ($110m) will be put towards “competitive contracts and grants to public and private entities to fund medically accurate and age appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy.” The remaining $4m are dedicated to program evaluation funding, including longitudinal evaluations, of teenage pregnancy prevention approaches. Hooray for evidence.

The House passed the omnibus bill last week, and President Obama is expected to sign it imminently.  

Weekly Round-Up

by Andrea Maruniak, Program Assistant, 
National Women's Law Center 

Silvia Henriquez, Executive Director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, wrote for CNN about the important role Latinas are playing in the debates over abortion and health care reform (via Women’s Health News). 

An op-ed in The Washington Post entitled, “It’s time for New Deal feminism,” asserted the need for a return to the feminist ideals of the 1930s to gain greater economic and workplace security and equality for women.

RH Reality Check posted about the elimination of the HPV vaccine mandate for immigration, and what its elimination means for reproductive justice.

For World AIDS Day, Danine Spencer posted a call for everyone to do their part to stop the spread of the epidemic, noting that every day should be World AIDS Day (via the Carnival of Feminists at the Undomestic Goddess). 

A Massachusetts court awarded $2 million to a pharmacist who was allegedly fired after requesting pay equal to that given to her male co-workers (via Feministing). 

Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote at ACS Blog about the Hyde Amendment and the current battles over abortion and health care reform. 

The Medicare Buy-In Option: What We Would Like to See

by Kelli Garcia, Fellow,
National Women's Law Center

Although NWLC strongly supports a real public option, the alternatives under consideration by the Senate nevertheless require scrutiny. One such alternative, the Medicare buy-in for Americans between the ages of 55 and 64, has important implications for women, who currently comprise 51% of the uninsured in that age group. Under the proposal, people aged 55 to 64 would have the option of purchasing health insurance coverage through the Medicare program. 

Although the specific details of the program are currently unknown, it is likely that until the proposed health insurance exchanges are in place, the coverage would be available for purchase without subsidies, but once the exchanges are active, federal subsides could be used to purchase the coverage through the exchanges. The Medicare buy-in could address some of the barriers to health care access that currently plague older uninsured adults, who are more likely than younger uninsured adults to be in poor health and have a one-in-five chance of having two or more chronic conditions.

Women in particular could benefit from the increased access to health care. Even among the insured, women are more likely than men to report having difficulty obtaining needed health care because of cost. In contrast, compared to those with employer-sponsored insurance coverage, Medicare beneficiaries report that they have easier access to physicians, have fewer billing problems and are more likely to get needed tests and medications without facing costs or access problems. In fact, they are generally more satisfied with their insurance coverage than those with employer sponsored plans.

Provision to Prevent Future Presidents from Reinstating Global Gag Rule Stripped from the Foreign Operations Bill

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate, 
National Women's Law Center 

Disappointing news: on Wednesday, a provision to prevent future presidents from unilaterally reinstating the “Global Gag Rule”—originally introduced as an amendment by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) over the summer—was stripped from the final conference report of the State Foreign Operations bill over anti-choice lawmakers’ threats that they would prevent the bill’s passage unless it were removed.

The Mexico City Policy—or “Global Gag Rule”—requires all foreign, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to agree not to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” or to “provide financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities.” NGOs may not spend any of their resources on abortion-related activism or services, even if such funding is not U.S.-based, stifling public debate in countries where clandestine abortion threatens the health and lives of women. The Global Gag Rule has led to enormous cut backs in services, closures of health care centers, and dramatic shortfalls in contraceptive supplies.

The policy was introduced by President Reagan in 1984, overturned by President Clinton in 1993, reinstituted by President Bush in 2001, and overturned by President Obama on only his third day in office. Thankfully, the restrictions are not currently in place, but advocates fear that the a future President will flip the switch yet again and turn this harmful policy back on.

It’s deeply disappointing that Congress has lost this opportunity to permanently right this wrong. For now—at least until next year’s appropriations process—international organizations receiving U.S. aid to provide critical family planning services that help save women’s lives can only continue to hope that their funding doesn’t evaporate on the whim of a future U.S. President.