Womenstake

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.  

Boehner Substitute Still Treats Women Like a Pre-existing Condition

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh) released last night his substitute amendment to the House health care reform legislation. The statement of Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), follows:

“Representative Boehner’s health care substitute does not address many of the problems that exist today in our broken health care system. Worse still, it takes us backwards in the effort to provide accessible, affordable and comprehensive health care. This is a proposal that insurance company executives should love.

“Under this proposal, being a woman is still a pre-existing condition. This substitute does not give any protections against the discriminatory practices of basing insurance premiums on gender. Most women will continue to be charged more than men for the exact same coverage in the individual market and many companies will be charged more for their women employees. Additionally, women may still be denied coverage based on their status as a domestic violence or sexual assault survivor or having had a C-section. This proposed plan leaves them no better off than they are today.

“The plan takes our health care system in the wrong direction. For example, the legislation’s provision to allow individuals to shop for health insurance across state lines may seem innocuous, but don’t be fooled. State insurance regulations provide critical consumer protections and require that important health services are covered –- helping ensure that women receive coverage that meets their health care needs. Expanding access to health savings accounts could result in women buying insurance that has lower premiums, but may leave them with insufficient coverage –- at great risk to their health and financial security. And, the plan uses this historic debate to advance one of the long-standing goals of the anti-choice movement –- to prevent any insurance plan that receives even one dollar of federal funding, now or in the future, from including coverage of abortion care for women.

“Women’s well-being—and that of their families—depends on health reform that meets their needs. In short, Boehner’s proposed substitute is the wrong prescription for what ails our system. It fails to make the grade when it comes to improving access to comprehensive, quality, affordable health care for women and their families.”

'Glee' Cheerleading Coach and Pregnancy Discrimination - Shame on Sue!

by Amanda Stone, Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center

“Q, take off those sunglasses. I want to look in your eyes when I tell you this. You’re off the Cheerios. I can’t have a pregnant girl on the squad. You’re a disgrace.” These are the words that Sue Sylvester, coach of the school’s award-winning competitive cheerleading squad, the Cheerios, told pregnant teen Quinn Fabray at the end of this week’s episode of "Glee," the new hit Fox musical high school series.

Can Sue do this? Absolutely not! "Glee" is set in what appears to be a public high school in Ohio. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits schools that receive federal funds from discriminating against students on the basis of sex, including pregnancy. In fact, the Title IX regulations explicitly provide protection to pregnant students. Specifically, the provision prohibits discrimination based on a student’s “pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom.”

Practically speaking, what does Title IX mean for pregnant students? Schools subject to Title IX must provide these students with equal access to all school programs and activities. This means schools may not assume that pregnant students cannot attend school or participate in school activities. In fact, these are precisely the types of outmoded stereotypes Congress intended to address when it passed Title IX.  

So what does this mean for schools? Well, a school cannot penalize pregnant students for violating its moral code. Nor can it require pregnant students to take steps not required of all students with medical conditions requiring the treatment of a physician. A pregnant student’s participation in school activities should be made in consultation with the student and her doctor and a school may not erect hurdles, large or small, to discourage her participation.

Sue’s actions clearly violated Title IX, but kicking Quinn off of the cheerleading squad also made bad policy. Studies indicate that participation in school activities helps to keep students engaged in school, thus making it less likely they will give up and drop out. Unfortunately, what happened to Quinn is not unique -– schools all over the country still discriminate against pregnant students, 37 years after Title IX was enacted. Shame on Sue!

Oklahoma Courts Attempt to Further Restrict Abortion Laws

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

While the health care debate rages on the National level, in Oklahoma women’s access to abortion care is being eroded by new legislation. What should be a personal choice between a woman and her health care provider is now a personal shaming placing yet another obstacle between a woman and her reproductive health.

The laws being challenged in the Oklahoman courts would require women seeking an abortion to fill out a lengthy questionnaire covering topics ranging from economic background, marital status, education level, and even the relation to the father. The legislature then proposes to post this information online where it can be viewed by the public in an attempt to gain more insight into the reasons women seek abortion care.

New laws would require the performing physician to describe the fetus in detail prior to the performance of an abortion. The laws would also mandate the use of a vaginal transducer in the earliest stages of pregnancy, since it provides the clearest image when the fetus is small. While several states already require women seeking abortions undergo ultrasounds, this law would force women to submit to an even more invasive procedure than a traditional abdominal ultrasound.

Supporters of the bill argue that these measures are in place to ensure women make an informed decision. In reality, it is a step that would make an already difficult situation more painful both physically and mentally, as well as erode a woman’s autonomy when it comes to matters of reproductive choice.

October is Sex Ed Month of Action – Get Moving!

By Candace Webb, Outreach Manager,
National Women's Law Center 

Since 1996, Congress has provided more than one billion dollars in federal funding to states, communities and school districts to implement “abstinence-only” programs. And just last week, Congress voted once again to continue funding these failed programs. These programs have repeatedly been proven ineffective, as studies have shown. And as my colleague Julia Kaye pointed out last week some federally funded abstinence-only programs promote stereotypes about gender and relationships.

Unlike failed abstinence-only programs, comprehensive sexuality education programs provide teens complete information, are medically accurate, and have an evidence base of effectiveness. For these reasons and more, the National Women’s Law Center fully supports efforts to help young people on their campuses and in their communities across the country to build momentum for comprehensive sex education during October’s Sex Ed Month of Action – and to urge their Members of Congress to become co-sponsors of the Responsible Education About Life Act (the REAL Act).  

Having been a youth sexual health educator myself, I know just how important medically accurate and science-based comprehensive sexuality education is to keeping teens and young adults knowledgeable and equipped with the skills needed to make life-long healthy and responsible decisions. On many occasions, I educated youth that came from very conservative families where sex and birth control were taboo topics and were never discussed. On the flip side, I came across youth who had parents that used a positive sexuality approach toward sexuality education and talked openly and honestly with their children from a young age about sex, relationships, and sexual health issues so that they could develop healthy attitudes toward sexuality and themselves.

Another lesson I learned as a youth sexual health educator was the vital role schools and communities have in preparing young people for a lifetime of sexual health. I learned that many young women relied on the information they received in schools because they were not getting this much-needed information in a more intimate family setting. In the ideal world, parents would be the primary sexual health educators of their children – meaning they would be comfortable talking to their children about relationships and safer sex, and there would be less pressure on schools to be the exclusive providers of the only accurate sexual health information youth will ever get.

NWLC Applauds Confirmation of Thomas Perez

by Amy Matsui, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

The National Women’s Law Center applauds the Senate for confirming Thomas Perez as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today by a bipartisan vote of 72-22. The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) strongly supported Mr. Perez’s nomination.

“The National Women’s Law Center commends the Senate for confirming Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and is proud to have supported his nomination,” said NWLC Co-President Marcia Greenberger. “Mr. Perez, who brings twenty years of experience enforcing and supporting our nation’s civil rights laws, is eminently qualified for this position.”  

Mr. Perez has spent his entire career in public service. He worked as a career prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division, where he was quickly promoted to Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section.  He was appointed to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 1998, and he served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services from February 1999 until the end of the Clinton Administration. At various points in his career, Mr. Perez worked for the late Senator Edward Kennedy, advising the Senator on civil rights, criminal justice and constitutional issues, and taught law and public health. Mr. Perez currently serves as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation.

The Civil Rights Division enforces legal protections of critical importance to women, including Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment; Title IX, which protects women against sex-based discrimination in educational programs; and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which allows women to safely exercise their constitutional right to reproductive health. In addition, the Civil Rights Division is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes and human trafficking crimes.  

Mr. Perez’s nomination comes at a critical time. Much work needs to be done to address pay discrimination, educational opportunities, violence against health care providers, and a host of other urgent matters.

“It is time for a Civil Rights Division that is fully committed to enforcing the civil rights protections upon which the citizens of this nation rely,” Greenberger said.  “Mr. Perez is the right person to restore the department’s historic role as guardian of civil rights and to make the enforcement of women’s rights and legal protections a priority once again.”

Weekly Round-Up

by Robin Reed, Online Outreach Manager, 
National Women's Law Center 

The New York Times’ Economix blog explored several of the reasons health care reform is such an important issue for women. 

Rachel posted at Our Bodies Our Blog about a new study that found an increase in the number of medical abortions and said, “The large geographic overlap between facilities that provide surgical abortion and those that offer mifepristone means that, in many cases, women are able to choose the type of early abortion procedure they prefer,” but that “mifepristone has not brought a major improvement in the geographic availability of abortion.”

The University of Maryland, which currently has 15 women’s sports teams and 12 men’s teams, may need to eliminate some teams to cut expenses due to the economic crisis (via Title IX Blog).

Two American women won the Nobel prize for medicine for their work on chromosomes and cell division. So far, a total of 10 women have won the prize. 

Courtney posted at Feministing about the ongoing allegations by some that the economic crisis has hurt men more than it has women.