Searched to see if this has been mentioned anywhere . . . [View All]

[enlightenment]

Could we, perhaps, undertake a policy discussion on this bit of information I received in an email from the ACLU?

Dear Friend,

We need you to act immediately to undo a disturbing decision from the Obama administration. Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak's draconian abortion coverage ban during the health care debate?

Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn't allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn't even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.

Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.

Unless the Administration reverses this decision, some of America's most vulnerable women—those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied health care coverage on the individual market—won't be able to purchase abortion coverage except in the case of rape or incest or to save the pregnant woman's life.

You and I know that every woman should be able to decide what is best for her health and her family. A pro-choice administration should know that too.

It's especially discouraging to impose a ban on women participating in a high-risk insurance pool who are particularly vulnerable and may have a special need for abortion. For example, because of the restriction, a woman with heart disease or diabetes might be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term despite its potentially damaging effect on her future health.

Ask President Obama not to stand in the way of vulnerable women's health care choices.

It's urgent that you send your message to President Obama right now. When you do, we'll also forward a copy to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, whose department is putting this unnecessary and harmful restriction into effect.

Thank you for acting on this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington Legislative Office

I do not know the details of this - nor do I have an inkling why this coverage ban might be considered an acceptable move by the HHS. I am not tossing grenades, I am hoping someone can give a justification for this largely irrational action. Would this fall under the heading of deficit reduction? Bipartisanship? Pragmatism?