Last week, in a calculated political move to retain control of the House, the Obama Administration imposed a total ban on abortions for women being covered by temporary Pre-existing Condition insurance plans, otherwise known as high risk pools.
High risk pools provide temporary coverage for people who can’t currently get health insurance because of a preexisting condition (in 2014, they’ll be eligible for health insurance as the expansion program is rolled out). Women covered by these high risk pools have, by definition, medical conditions so serious that companies are unwilling to insure them. So… if these women get pregnant, there’s a greater risk that they’ll need an abortion for health reasons, which is why New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Maryland’s temporary coverage would’ve potentially allowed for that option. But then the Obama Administration came in and said, nope! No coverage for you!
Via the Seattle Times:
Trying to head off more problems, the Health and Human Services Department announced last week the program will not cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger – exceptions traditionally allowed under federal law.
That’s a more restrictive policy than will be generally applied under Obama’s new health care law.
And why, you ask?
The turnabout comes amid growing recognition among Democrats that the nation’s unsettled political climate could cost them control of the House in the fall elections. The health care law remains a powerful motivator for opponents of Obama’s policies, and no issue stirs deeper passions than abortion.
So right now—and for the next four years—women with serious medical conditions will be denied the comprehensive coverage they might need if they experience a complicated pregnancy. I understand the politics at work here, but on a gut level—on a humane level—I wish that sacrificing women’s health didn’t translate into more votes for democrats.
GODDAMMIT this makes me furious!
FUCK!!!
More sellouts to the radical extreme right who will never love him or support him, because they hate the fact that he’s our first Black President.
Very very bad decision.
This makes me angry.
If this is true, it is indeed infuriating. When will Dems learn they risk their most ardent supporters for the never going to happen support of right wingers? All at the expense of women! Goddamnit!
Sacrificing women’s health does NOT translate into more votes for Democrats. It demoralizes their base while appeasing a constituency that will never, EVER, vote Democratic for any reason. It translates to fewer votes for Democrats, not more. Intelligent people see this. Apparently, since they kicked Howard Dean to the curb, there are no, (or few), intelligent people running the Democratic Party.
fuck obama. maybe i’m just being idealist (and i know bringing up the past doesn’t help), but i can’t imagine hillary doing this
I hate to say “I told you so,” but I really did, you know.
@7: Oh, please. You must not remember the Clinton years very well. Obama’s tactic of playing to the middle is straight out of their playbook.
If I had known that happenings in my very own uterus could win or lose votes, I would have been cashing in on that a lot sooner. Thanks Dems!
Oh, I get it Obama. If you get pregnant but it may kill you because of health reasons, you just have to die if your poor. I mean, what’s losing a few women compared to votes you probably won’t get anyway?
1) They’re not saying women can’t have abortions. They’re just saying they’re not going to pay for them with that fund. There are various other ways to get cheap(er) abortions.
2) Except in certain cases (rape), women do have a choice about getting pregnant. Of course it would be disingenuous to suggest that any human being in the history of the world has exercised uniformly good judgment about sex, but it’s not like a woman can just be walking down the street and be struck pregnant by god (and if she was, we probably wouldn’t want her to terminate). This isn’t breast cancer we’re talking about. It’s a procedure to mitigate the negative impact of something you don’t have to do.
3) Of course, none of that matters when we’re being self-righteous and uptight. By all means. Carry on.
Let me be clear – at this rate, I’m just not going to bother to vote for President. Because if the choice is between an Extreme Right Republican and a Right of Center Republican Lite – well, forget it.
@14: Don’t feel guilty for not voting Will. You’re doing enough to preserve democracy by your work here on Slog.
bill clinton dropped health care. hillary would not have dropped it. she spearheaded the first effort, and when it was unsuccessful, she retreated from the spotlight almost in entirety. when she was running against obama, she had a more impressive and inclusive health care plan, one that obama largely used as the basis of his health care plan.
Will in Seattle:
Yeah, I applied that approach when I voted for Nader in 2000. I did it in Washington, so it didn’t end up amounting to anything here, but if you think there’s no difference between Obama and whoever the GOP fields, just remember 9/11, and think about what might have happened if we’d had anyone besides Bush in office.
Another brilliant move by the Democratic party to kiss the asses of those who would vote GOP anyway. Remember, it was a Democrat who signed DOMA and DADT.
Jesus, Judah, the only thing scarier than having Bush in office on 9/11 would have been having Gore in office then.
Once again, the well-being of a vulnerable population is sacrificed for some convoluted notion of political expediency.
@13 Thank you. That’s exactly* what I was going to say.
*Well, not word for word, but you know what I mean.
@19
Because…? And, before you answer, keep in mind that Bush used it as an excuse to legalize torture, overwrite the War Powers Act, and turn the entire rest of the world against us. Prosecuting the “war on terror” ineffectively — which we don’t actually know that Gore would have — could hardly have been more destructive to our national interests.
All you pro-Hillary people think she would have had an easier time with the Senate than Obama? That she would have gotten her plan past the Party of No? Maybe if she used the nuclear option, but Dems seem just as shy about using that as the ‘pubs.
@20
Women are fifty-two percent of the electorate. Please explain to me how that qualifies them as a “vulnerable population”.
Oh, alright, Judah, now that you mention it, just about anybody would have been an iimprovement over Bush. Except maybe Will in Seattle.
@24 We’re talking specifically about women with serious medical conditions who are in high risk insurance pools due to those conditions, not all women in the U.S. Reading the post before commenting is typically a good idea.
When the fuck will the Democrats grow spines? Even when their supporters are demonstrably in the right, they’re just unable to stand on the evidence and point out the disingenuous framing of the Republicans. Torture: evil, illegal, doesn’t produce good intel and only makes more enemies, but nope, we’ll let this horrible precedent stand & won’t prosecute the torturers cuz we don’t wanna look “soft on terrah.” Abortions: pragmatic, legal, NOT YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, fetuses can’t feel pain for the majority of the pregnancy, and there’s never been any evidence that this “soul” thing even exists, and we live in a secular nation where Congress should make no law establishing a mandatory religious practice, but nope, can’t look immoral.
When the Republicans can make them look immoral, you know they’re fucked.
So what does an abortion cost these days? Any law against setting up a privately run fund to provide financial assistance until we can get the ruling changed?
@26
Yes, and the post in question ends with, “I understand the politics at work here, but on a gut level—on a humane level—I wish that sacrificing women’s health didn’t translate into more votes for democrats.”
Not some women, but women generally. And, unless Cienna is one of the sub-group you’re talking about, her interest in this is certainly not the interest of a vulnerable sub-population; this is being presented as a women’s issue, generally.
Being snide about someone else’s perfectly reasonable inference just makes you look like a dick. You should try another approach.
@28: Contact your local Planned Parenthood. Either they have a fund to help out women who can’t afford abortions, or they’ll know who does in your community.
@13&21
my sister has limes disease and is therefor taking many drugs that would almost certainty cause either major, devastating birth defects or spontaneous abortion (i.e.. miscarriage), if she were to become pregnant. These drugs make it possible for her to attend school and hold down a job and maybe, someday be cured.
She is 22, in a relationship with a long term boyfriend, and takes every possible precaution against pregnancy, pills and condoms. But several of the drugs she is on lessen the effectiveness of the pill, and condoms are far from 100%.
your argument is specious and unhelpful.
Judah at 13, the bill denies poor, ill women access to a specific procedure that could save their lives, and that access is denied because *some* people have a moral problem with the procedure. Let’s say I have a moral problem with men who aren’t married getting Viagra – is that limited because of my moral objection? Hell no.
Once again, women are denied rights that men have, and this time, in the name of crap midterm election politics.
@17 – sometimes, you just have to throw the baby-crazy Republicants out with the bath water, even if they pretend they’re Democrats.
@28 Contact the CAIR Project. It’s basically what you’re talking about.
http://www.cairproject.org/
…
@32 – can you not read? These pools will STILL cover abortions when the life of the mother is at risk.
That said, it still sucks – there are many scenarios where abortion is the more humane choice for the child.
I think it’s unfortunate as well, but I don’t think the DHS had much of a choice. The Hyde amendment makes the department’s funding contingent on limiting abortion coverage to just those exceptions. Presumably any spending for the stop-gap high-risk plans has the same limitations (Obama did make a signing statement to that effect, and that was several months ago).
The reason that the future exchange plans are less restrictive is that the privately-administered plans that cover abortion have to separate the costs of any abortion coverage from any other services that receive federal subsidy (including, and especially, the subsidies that will be provided to individuals to buy plans on the exchange).
Further, insurance companies are under no obligation to offer abortion coverage in the exchanges, and I presume even if they did, they could refuse to offer abortion coverage to high-risk patients.
So, yes, the Hyde Amendment is stupid and it sucks. But Obama didn’t write the Hyde Amendment. Talk to the fuckers in Congress who keep attaching it to budgetary bills.
BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
2008-
Conservatives say “Jump!” Obama says “how high?”
2009-
Conservatives think “Jump”
Obama says “how high? how many times?”
2010-
Obama just jumping all on his own like
a kangaroo on crack……
@31
Nothing in your comment actually contradicts the elements of my argument. If pregnancy would put your sister’s life at risk, she has the option of just not having the kinds of sex that can get her pregnant. Or she can use an IUD. Or she can use condoms and rhythm. And so on.
Your claim that my arguments are specious and unhelpful would carry more weight if you actually addressed my arguments in some meaningful way.
@32
Your comparison is inapposite. Abortion is not the same thing, medically or socially as viagra. Nor is the issue under discussion about whether or not women can get the procedure at all, as you seem to suggest with the line, “men who aren’t married getting Viagra”. It’s not about whether women can get abortions. It’s about whether the government will pay for them.
And that line is just silly. Women and men are biologically different — of course medical treatments for them and the payment schedules for such are going to be different.
That said, women do have rights that men don’t. Like, for example, the right not to sign up for the draft, or be drafted into combat. But, again, that’s not really what we’re talking about here.
Judah, Shut the fuck up.
People, Do you think Bush solely masterminded EVERYTHING for 8 years? NO, you don’t. Please do not assume that everything that comes out of the government is Obama’s fault.
Don’t be like those baiting fox news assholes, Pretend your better than that.
this makes me feel so mad and so… helpless at the same time. my government doesn’t give a fuck what i value or what i think. awesome.
also @41, totally agree, it’s not one man, it’s the whole system
I really don’t want this to turn into a debate on the morality of abortion (and if it does, I’m staying out of it). I honestly don’t have a strong opinion either way–I tend to take the pro-choice side mostly because, in a very general sense, the pro-life side consists of the type of people I don’t want to be in agreement with.
That said, there are a lot of people who consider abortion murder. Some, I’m sure, have ulterior fundamentalist motives, but for many of them it’s a sincere belief. Disagree with their arguments all you want, but I don’t see how it’s justifiable to pay for abortions with their tax money. No one likes having someone else’s morality imposed on them, right?
@41
Because you’ve wrapped up the entire argument with your keen and incisive commentary? Okeydokey.
Stop the train, I want to get off this party. We need a party that is actually at least semi left leaning in this country. =(
43, I’m morally opposed to war, but my tax dollars go to pay for it… I was PARTICULARLY morally opposed to the Iraq War but I couldn’t stop that either.
Judah, this is really a public health issue. The women in these risk pools shouldn’t be pregnant. They have cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis, or sickle cell disease. And yep, they can use contraception, but even IUDs and tubal ligations fail. And so why should they have to jump through hoops to get a medically appropriate procedure that’s available for the rest of the population? News flash: you don’t check your sexuality at the door to the cancer ward.
Are there any abortion providers out there besides me who have had to use the “life of the mother” exception? I’m wondering how strictly the access is enforced, how many people have to sign off, how long approval takes, etc. The two states where I’ve worked haven’t made it a big burden to get the exception, but I’ve heard that in other states the mother has to be in imminent danger of death, that preservation of her health wasn’t good enough to get the procedure covered. (and don’t even get me started on states where the paperwork itself is part of the harassment of abortion providers, e.g., Pennsylvania)
“I’m morally opposed to war, but my tax dollars go to pay for it… I was PARTICULARLY morally opposed to the Iraq War but I couldn’t stop that either.”
Right, and that’s terrible. So why would you be in favor of something similar happening to someone else? I suppose “I have to pay for things I’m deeply and fundamentally opposed to, so you should too” isn’t the worst reason in the world, but it doesn’t strike me as especially compelling either.
By the way, this was my argument against massive government involvement in healthcare. Beneficial as it may be, it also gives the Republicans unprecedented power to limit the availability of procedures they find immoral. I mean, what did everyone think was going to happen? It’d be nice if the Democrats weren’t so spineless, but either way, they’re not going to be in charge forever.
I’m sorry 47, but your argument doesn’t hold water. When I was growing up in Florida there were people morally opposed to giving other races equal rights (and I do mean “morally”—they had the full support of the Southern Baptists), and where I live now there are people who are morally opposed to vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (they believe it causes autism). Now those people are entitled to opinions and morals, even if they’re different than mine, but they can only opt out of vaccination, they don’t get a line-item veto on the federal budget. Abortion is no different.
And lest we forget, the women covered by this new ruling are PAYING for their insurance, not getting it free. Why shouldn’t they be covered?
I think all the pregnant Republicant women should get to decide if they want to keep their fetus.
Because in real life, they have about the same abortion rate as everyone else.
They say one thing, and do another.
This is a double-win for the Right. Fewer federally funded abortions, plus the bonus of in-fighting among the demoralized Left. But hey, blaming Obama takes less effort than fighting the Right, directly or indirectly (see @28 and @34).
Here’s the ACLU’s action item on this, if you feel like messaging Obama and the HHS.
@46 “And yep, they can use contraception, but even IUDs and tubal ligations fail.”
Over 99% effective is nothing to sneeze at, and if you, say, combine an IUD, condoms, and a hormonal BC — well, probabilities were never my strong suit, but those are great odds.
Well, ADoodle, @50, combining those methods sounds good, but a lot of women with those problems are limited in the methods they can use. To wit: many cancer patients (e.g., breast, melanoma) can’t use hormonal methods, and most immune-suppressed patients (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, cancer again) can’t use IUDs, and condoms have a certain chance of leakage/breakage, not to mention those of us who are latex- and Nonoxynol-9-sensitive. So yup, you’re right, using belt-and-suspenders to keep your pants up is really good, but sometimes you CAN’T use both, and sometimes you’re STILL gonna get caught with your pants down.
Personally, I’ve never had a BC failure, but I’ve seen them in patients with IUDs, vasectomies, pills, and so forth. Hell, even women with documented ovarian failure have a 5-10% spontaneous pregnancy rate. So, stop blaming the victims and trivializing what is a real issue for chronically ill women. Just because they’re sick doesn’t mean they’ve stopped being human and having human urges and feelings. Why can’t they get covered for an appropriate medical procedure, particularly when they are PAYING for their insurance?