Study: Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage 'Over Time For All Women'

[Are_grits_groceries]

A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope.

The report concludes that "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.
<snip>
Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women--a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only--may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/study-stupak-amendment-will-eliminate-abortion-coverage-over-time-for-all-women.php

Yeah...It's just an amendment.

It will be nearly impossible to undo this if it is passed. In addition, I'll bet some of the major players are already cahooting with insurance company execs. MEH!

[Taverner]

1. Fuck him and his invisible friends!

[valerief]

2. So the real answer is to get rid of insurance. Medicare for All! nt

[superduperfarleft]

7. Medicare IS insurance.

:facepalm:

[valerief]

8. Oh, you know I meant the ripoff for-profit insurance companies.

Medicare controls costs. The ripoff for-profits just rob and deny, rob and deny.

Sheesh!

[superduperfarleft]

9. The terminology is important.

Or do you think that when I correct a rabid teabagger when he says "I don't want government controlling my healthcare!" he should respond with, "Oh, you know what I meant?"

[valerief]

10. Okay, so you think I'm a rabid teabagger. Whatever. nt

[superduperfarleft]

11. I didn't say that. Whatever. n/t

[valerief]

12. Ha! I knew that was coming. n/t

[sakabatou]

3. The Stupak anti-woman amendment must be stamped out of the bill

[valerief]

4. Funny how they don't touch the in vitro crap. Don't think their bible wrote about that either. nt

[saracat]

5. And Waay oo many democrats don't even care. I met with some

who are in a position to know the Party policy last night and reelection is what is the only important issue. Apparentky what is done once they are elected counts for very little.

[Blue State Blues]

6. Wait a minute, do I understand this about "medically indicated"?

"eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women"

Are they talking about "medically indicated abortions" as in the "health of the mother," procedures that aren't allowed under Stupak-Pitts because even though continuing a complicated pregnancy may cause health problems including infertility and organ damage, the Stupak rules require that death be imminent? Sure, the pregnancy may cause permanent disability, but we can't do the medically indicated procedure because the mother isn't almost dead yet.

This is not simply eliminating coverage for so-called "elective abortions," a term used by those who say, "I don't want my tax dollars paying for someone else's elective procedure" (as if it were a nose job or a tummy tuck).

This is saying we refuse to cover women's health and we refuse to allow anyone else to cover it.

How can anyone other than the most vehement anti-abortion activists support this measure?

[sybylla]

14. Yep, you understand correctly.

Insurance doesn't traditionally cover elective abortions. Stupak-Pitts bans coverage for all abortions except in the case of rape or threatening the "life" of the mother. No coverage for abortions indicated by the health or welfare of the mother.

[spanone]

13. with current law you don't need the stupak amendment...it's already law