Womenstake

NWLC in the News

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

The Colorado Independent, November 17, 2009
Colorado Health Insurance Lobby Vows to Fight Mandatory Maternity Coverage

Women's eNews, November 15, 2009
Jobless Benefits Will Now Reach More Women

The New York Times, November 14, 2009
In Congress, a Predicament for Abortion Supporters

NPR, November 10, 2009
Democrats Face Backlash Over House Abortion Limits

ClickZ, November 10, 2009
Healthcare Reform Advertisers Warming Up Big Guns

U.S. News & World Report, November 9, 2009
Abortion Coverage Severely Restricted in House Health Reform Bill

Tell Your Senators that You Need It All

by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights, 
National Women's Law Center

Why should women have to make a trade-off between our ability to get abortion coverage and trying to eliminate other unfair and discriminatory insurance practices against women in health reform?

We shouldn’t.

Tell your Senators that you need it all — health care reform that works for women includes comprehensive reproductive health care that covers abortion care.

The passage of the House health care reform bill brought us one step closer to health reform that works for women by ending higher premiums based on gender, denials by insurance companies for having had a Cesarean section or suffered domestic abuse under the guise that these were “pre-existing conditions,” and providing other major protections for women.

But anti-choice Members of Congress dealt a huge blow to women’s reproductive health coverage at the last minute by including the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment in health care legislation. If this amendment becomes law, it will, in effect, prohibit women from using their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage in the new health insurance exchanges—taking away essential coverage that most insurance plans provide today.

Now, the Senate is about to take up health reform legislation. We need to make sure that they know that women demand it all because women need it all. Tell your Senators that we need health reform that works for women now, including comprehensive reproductive health care that covers abortion care.

Putting Women Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Accept a System That Insures More People, Lose Your Reproductive Rights

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

Ezra Klein recently posted to his blog about how the Stupak amendment unfairly limits low- and middle-income women’s access to insurance plans that cover abortion. 

The House health reform bill creates an insurance exchange where people who receive government subsidies will go to choose among insurance plans. The Stupak amendment forbids plans that are offered to people who receive subsidies from covering abortion. This means that people receiving subsidies will not be able to buy a comprehensive insurance plan that covers abortion, even if the abortion coverage would have been paid for using the personal premium dollars and not the subsidies (which was the compromise reached before the Stupak amendment). Because most people will receive subsidies, insurance plans on the exchange will also be unlikely to offer a separate comprehensive plan that covers abortion for non-subsidized individuals, so even people who do not receive subsidies at all may not be able to find a plan that covers abortion on the exchange. 

Mr. Klein’s post reminded me of three thoughts:

1) Low income women already get no respect when it comes to being allowed to make reproductive decisions. All women should have the right to make whatever decision is best for themselves and their families. But Medicaid doesn’t cover abortions because of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion except in extremely narrow exceptions. Only 17 states use their own funds to cover all medically necessary abortions for women on Medicaid. Health reform makes many more women eligible for Medicaid, which means more women will have health insurance, but at the expense of the government taking the power to make personal decisions away from women.

Weekly Round-Up

by Katherine Beauchemin, Communication Intern, 
National Women's Law Center 

The American Prospect took a look at Title IX through the eyes of a father as he witnessed the positive impact of Little League baseball on his daughter.

According to a Washington Post report, a panel of independent experts concluded, “Sex-education programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and teach them about contraception cut risky sexual behavior, increase condom use and lower the chances of getting the AIDS virus and other infections.”

The Centers for Disease Control eliminated the requirement that immigrant women and girls receive the HPV vaccine, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and other organizations announced. 

In an attempt to curb teen pregnancies and encourage girls to attend college, a group in North Carolina is paying girls who enroll in college and don’t become pregnant, Opposing Views reported. 

Economists at MIT conducted a national study which links girls’ school environment with success in mathematics, reported MIT News.

Chally posted links to a collection of excellent feminist carnivals on Feministe. 

Abortion Coverage Matters: The High-Stakes in the Fight Over the Stupak Amendment

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

Some proponents of health-care reform are urging those who support abortion rights to accept the restrictions imposed by the Stupak Amendment in the name of the “greater good.” What is health insurance coverage for abortion compared to extending coverage to 35 million Americans, they ask? According to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., the whole debate is a bunch of fuss over nothing much. He cites a 2001 study by the Guttmacher Institute that found that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were billed directly to providers as support for the notion that the Stupak Amendment will have little real impact on women. Of course, as the Guttmmacher Institute notes, this number is misleading for two primary reasons.

First, the study looked at all women who obtained abortions in 2001, including women on Medicaid and those who were uninsured. Obviously, women who are uninsured will not have abortion coverage and current law restricts federal funding for abortion services for Medicaid recipients (although some states do use their own funds to pay for abortion coverage). According to the Guttmacher Institute, had they looked only at women with private insurance, the percentage of abortions billed to insurance companies would be “substantially higher”.

Second, the study did not include women who obtained reimbursement from their insurance company directly, which is relatively common, because many abortion providers are not part of private insurance networks. The Gutmmacher Institute also found that in 2002, 87 percent of typical employer-based insurance policies covered medically necessary or appropriate abortions. Notably, “the 87 percent of plans that covered abortions did not include those plans that offered abortion coverage only in very limited circumstances, such as rape and incest, or to protect the woman’s life.”

House Health Reform Bill Delivers on Equal Tax Treatment for Domestic Partner Health Benefits

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

A while ago I blogged about my frustration over the inequitable tax treatment of health benefits for domestic partners.  To recap, job-based health benefits are generally tax-free, so that the health insurance that employers offer to their workers’ family members (i.e. spouses and dependent children) doesn’t count as taxable income.  In contrast, if an employee gets coverage for a domestic partner through his/her job, the cost of the domestic partner’s health insurance is considered taxable income. Because of this unfair tax treatment, workers receiving domestic partner health benefits pay an average of $1,069 more per year in federal taxes than their married peers.

The health reform bill that the House of Representatives passed on Saturday night includes a commendable provision that would eliminate this inequity in the tax code and make domestic partner health benefits tax-free.  Hopefully the tax equity provision will remain in the combined legislation when the House and Senate bills are merged during the process known as “conference.” (The Senate has yet to unveil the final version of its health care bill, but current versions do not include the provision.) It’s just one of the many ways that the House bill improves access to affordable health insurance.  As noted by the Human Rights Campaign—which is working on this and many other issues related to health reform’s effect on the LGBT population—if the unfair tax penalty is eliminated, “more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.”

Abortion and Health Care Reform: How The House Bill Forces Women to Accept Less Coverage Than They Already Have

by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights, 
National Women's Law Center 

Last week it seemed that a compromise had been reached between abortion rights supporters and opponents. The compromise was based on the idea that health reform is so important that no one would try to use a single controversial issue as an excuse to bring the whole thing down. So, language was drafted that would sustain the status quo on abortion; no federal funding, but people could still use their own money to buy insurance that would cover them. But just hours before the final vote on the House reform bill, anti-abortion Democrats threatened that unless they got new restrictions on abortion rights they would vote against health reform. Here’s the breakdown:

The compromise: Under the language currently in the Senate Finance Committee’s bill and formerly in the House bill, no federal funding would be used for abortions. Under this provision, called the Capps Amendment, all insurance plans in the exchange would have to keep the money from private premiums and the money from government subsidies separate. Only money from private premiums would be allowed to pay for abortions covered under the plans. This is how current law on abortion works; for example, under Medicaid, federal funds are not allowed to be used for abortions, but some states provide funding by separating their state funds from the federal funds. Republican Senator Collins said that the compromise provision “did a good job of putting up a firewall that would prevent federal funds from being used to finance abortions." Under the compromise, at least one plan in the exchange would cover abortion services and at least one plan would not cover abortions services, giving every American the option of what type of plan she would like to purchase while ensuring that no federal funding would be used to cover abortions.

Abortion in health reform - how did your Representative vote?

by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights, 
National Women's Law Center 

Over the weekend, men got further than ever in their journey toward affordable, accessible, and comprehensive health care.

Women? Not so much.

Anti-choice Members of Congress rolled back the clock on coverage of abortion services that millions of women currently have.  

Find out how your Representative voted – and tell them we won’t tolerate women’s rights being taken away.

On Saturday, the House of Representatives passed a major health care reform bill, bringing us one step closer to ending higher premiums based on gender, denials by insurance companies for having had a Caesarean section or suffered domestic abuse under the guise that these were “pre-existing conditions,” and other major protections for women.

But anti-choice forces used this major advance to subvert essential reproductive health care for women. An amendment, which passed at the last minute, takes away women's ability to purchase coverage for abortion care with their own funds in the health insurance exchanges and public plan that the legislation created. 

Where did your Representative stand? Find out – and thank those who stood up for women. And tell the others you're deeply disappointed by their votes.

The Senate takes up health care legislation next. We will not rest until women have health care reform that meets their essential needs, including their reproductive health care needs.

A Major Advancement in Health Care Reform - Next Step Must Meet Women's Reproductive Health Care Needs

Last night, the House voted 220 to 215 to pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R.3962).

The following is a statement by Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC):

"NWLC is both gratified that the House passed this vitally important reform for women and their families, and outraged that anti-choice forces would use this major advance to subvert essential health care for women by taking away women's ability to purchase coverage for abortion care with their own funds in the health insurance exchanges.

"The NWLC will not rest until women have health care reform that meets their essential needs, including their reproductive health care needs. The Center calls on the Administration and the leadership in the House and the Senate to secure that result in the Senate and in Conference. Any other outcome is both dangerous to women's health and unacceptable."

Vote Coming Soon - Reproductive Health at Risk in Health Reform

by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights, 
National Women's Law Center 

At this very moment, women’s health care coverage hangs in the balance. Anti-choice Members of Congress are trying to include language in health care reform that will take away insurance coverage for abortion that millions of women currently have.

There is no time to delay. Contact your Representatives. Tell them not to let the anti-choice Members of Congress take away vital reproductive health services. 

Anti-choice Members are trying to use health care reform as a vehicle to advance their agenda. We must not let this happen — because comprehensive reproductive health care is basic health care for women.

With your help, we could make history with health care reform that works for women and their families: no more higher premiums based on gender. No more insurance denials if you’ve had a Caesarean section or suffered domestic abuse. No more treating women like a pre-existing condition. The House bill has these important protections.

But we need you to help prevent Congress from negotiating women's abortion coverage away. Your actions will make a difference.