Americans Broadly Support Abortion Coverage in Health Reform

[ccharles000]

You my have heard — or you may not, as it seems to be getting little mainstream media coverage — that health care reform is in trouble. With Republicans and blue-dog Democrats sensing that some sort of of government coverage is likely to be successfully created this time around, they’re shifting tactics somewhat from attempting to defeat mounting legislative efforts to attempting to gut them. And a big area where they’re focusing that gutting is reproductive health care:

Imagine our dismay to see the proposed amendments submitted to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this week by Republican Senators Michael Enzi, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn:

* Coverage for abortion would be banned;
* Health providers and insurers would be protected against “discrimination” for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients including abortions, emergency contraception, aid-in-dying (such as in Oregon, Washington and Montana, where this is legal) or really just about any health service they find objectionable;
* Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants;
* Any independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include “professional ethicists…with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.”

The really interesting thing is that while traditional wisdom suggests there is rather broad support for a ban on government subsidization of abortions, new research from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that it’s not actually true — not by a long shot:

* Voters overwhelmingly support the broad outlines of reform and requiring coverage of women’s reproductive health services. Seven-in-ten (70%) favor a proposal that establishes a National Health Insurance Exchange with a public plan option. If the reform were adopted, voters overwhelmingly support requiring health plans to cover women’s reproductive health services (71% favor-21% oppose).
* Absent coverage for women’s reproductive health services, majorities oppose reform. If reform eliminated current insurance coverage of reproductive health services such as birth control or abortion, nearly two-thirds (60%) would oppose the plan and nearly half (47%) would oppose it strongly.

http://thecurvature.com/2009/07/09/americans-broadly-support-abortion-coverage-in-health-reform/

[Eric J in MN]

1. The National Women's Law Center doesn't seem to have put the wording of the questions online. NT

NT

[Oregone]

2. While we are on a roll, should the plan cover doctor assisted suicide too?

Yeah, not related, but just got me thinking (when I saw the mention of "Oregon").

Look, if you are going to pass reform that will already get the socialist hater's panties in a tizzy, why not have some more fun with it.

:)

[lindisfarne]

4. Actually, neither OR nor WA allow Physician assisted suicide. That is something different from a

physician providing a prescription for a drug which the patient then fills on his/her own and takes on his/her own. The OR is very clear that the patient must administer the drug him/herself.

[Oregone]

5. Yeah, but didn't they at some point?

I thought I remember that from back in the day, which triggered me to think about it.

Anyway, that aside, might as well throw that in too, eh? Just for shits and giggles

[lindisfarne]

6. Nope. But I'm sure many headlines have gotten the term wrong too.

"On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose."

It's got you covered for life insurance purposes too:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml
"127.880 s.3.14. Construction of Act.

Nothing in ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law. <1995 c.3 s.3.14>"

[Oregone]

7. Thnx!

[lindisfarne]

9. Death with the drug prescribed can take 3 hours or more. Not a quick death but I would expect, not

painful. Although you are advised to have someone present when you take the drug.

From the written request for the prescription:
"I understand the full import of this request and I expect to die when I take the medication to be prescribed. I further understand that although most deaths occur within three hours, my death may take longer and my physician has counseled me about this possibility."

[lindisfarne]

3. I'd like to see the following replicated by other more or less respectable major polling

groups. If it's borne out, I'll be very pleasantly surprised. I would have expected slightly more than half, but not 2/3 to 3/4, would support the questions posed below. Too bad National Womens Law Center doesn't have the actual questionnaire posted.

Even in the face of opposition arguments, majorities support requiring coverage of abortions under reform. After hearing strong arguments both for and against covering abortion under reform, two-thirds (66%) support coverage, agreeing that health care, not politics, should drive coverage decisions. A majority of voters (72%) reported that they would feel angry if Congress mandated by law that abortion would not be covered under a national health care plan.

[kimmylavin]

8. Abortion is still legal in this country, right?

So how the hell can they get away with nonsense like, "Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants."

[lindisfarne]

10. Right now (unless Obama has repealed), federal funds cannot be used for abortion. In WA, state funds

pay for them (for example, for people on Medicaid or other state programs) - but most states don't allow this either.
If you could argue life & death situation, or something like a tubal pregnancy which will end anyhow and could kill you, I suspect federal funds could be used. But only in such very restricted conditions.