Searched to see if this has been mentioned anywhere . . .

[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?

[kiva]

1. Hmmm...justification, probably not.

Excuses, however, should be posted soon.

[donco6]

5. The Links are on their way. n/t

[iamjoy]

2. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Restrictions against abortion always hit the most vulnerable women the hardest. Yes, ironically probably the women most likely to need an abortion.

So, President Obama doing this is like...

:wtf:

[griffi94]

3. What was the president supposed to do.

Take a stand for something he says he believes in.
That's not very pragmatic. I'm sure the repubs will support HCR now. We will probly be getting that strong public option any day now.

[roguevalley]

12. yes, he should never take a stand. that might mean something

to the people who will suffer. flame me if you want but I think some things are worth kicking ass over and if he would just take max and blanche and slap the shit out of them and a few others, he wouldn't have to sell out the most vulnerable among us.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. First I've heard of this. I'm an ACLU member, but didn't get this email.

on edit-- here it is:

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/obama-administration-will-ban-abortion-coverage-high-risk-insurance-pools

Should be reliable enough, but haven't heard from any other sources.

Sucks if true.

[pleah]

22. I got the same email. nt/

[TreasonousBastard]

32. I got it a few minutes after i posted. n/t

[pleah]

34. ;)

[depakid]

6. NARAL's onto the administration, too

Statement on Obama Administration Policy Excluding Abortion Coverage from High-Risk Pools

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the Obama administration's decision today to exclude abortion coverage from newly created high-risk pools wrongheaded and inexplicable.

"Abortion is the most common surgical procedure women receive," Keenan said. "At a time when the country is on the cusp of implementing nationwide health-insurance coverage, it is unacceptable to treat abortion care differently in the new high-risk pools. This policy means that women who are part of these pools because they have significant health problems, such as diabetes or cancer, will not be able to access abortion care, even if their health is at further risk. This decision puts in place a three-year restriction that is similar to the proposal from Rep. Bart Stupak that was rejected during the legislative debate on health reform."

The policy, while not yet public, reportedly bans abortion services in a newly created program for individuals with pre-existing conditions or other high-risk medical needs (with the exceptions of life, rape, and incest). The high-risk pools are designed to be a transitional program as the federal government works to create the health-insurance exchanges set to take effect in 2014.


Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2010/0707152010_obamaexcludeabortionhcr.html

[LWolf]

7. I'm running out of things to say.

Bad deal? Obviously. Upset? You bet.

Surprised? Not a bit. With the hits coming every day, I'm down to:

:wtf: :banghead: :grr: :argh:

I don't see any way to turn this titanic administration around.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. I just got this info in email from my Congresswoman

who is a pro-life Democrat. She was proud of it and I just tore her a new one. I know her stand on this, she was one of the last Dems to agree to vote yes on health care bill because of a concern over abortion. But I don't like her stand. This is a medical decision, not a governmental decision, damn it.

[Foo Fighter]

10. "This is a medical decision, not a government decision, damn it."

Exactly! Goddammit, someone that's in a high-risk pool in the first place might very well be one that needs an abortion to protect her own health. But hey, I guess if she needs to protect her health, she had better be prepared to shell out for it onw her own dime. After all, only poor women have abortions. The rich ones have their docs classify it as a "D & C." Covered by insurance, of course.

And kudos to you for tearing into your Congresswoman for supporting this. The last campaign lit I received in the mail from my Dem Rep. had a lovely pic of her proudly posing with, of all people, Bart Stupak. Needless to say, she won't be getting my vote.

[enlightenment]

11. Why was she proud of it?

What reasoning did she give for supporting this reversal? I'm at a complete loss; what is the logic behind this?

[Curmudgeoness]

26. She is proud of it because she ran on a pro-life platform.

She was not my choice to replace the forever Rep who had been in office. There were 6 Dem candidates, and she was next to the bottom of my list. But in conservative W PA, that got her lots of crossover votes. She has always been proud of her pro-life stand and makes no apologies. Well, she is better than what we had who was dyed in the wool Rep. On this issue, she just infuriates me.

[enlightenment]

28. Ah - okay. That makes more sense!

Thanks!

[cornermouse]

9. Kick because its important.

[jgraz]

13. K&R.

[niyad]

14. this just gets worse and worse

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hawkowl]

16. Obama needs to be primaried

That is our only hope from preventing him from becoming the most right wing "democratic president" in history.

[EFerrari]

17. If they think American women are just going to take this, they've lost it.

[kiva]

19. I really, really, want to believe that,

but I've become cynical enough to wonder.

Abortion rights don't seem to hold the same level of importance now that they did a generation ago. Maybe there's a whiggish assumption - despite the proof otherwise - that things do not regress, so women's reproductive rights are safe no matter what is said or done.

Part of it, I suspect, is the social acceptance of being a single mother - a good thing, but it also means that many women no longer see abortion as necessary to their own personal circumstances and don't see its importance to women as a group.

[EFerrari]

33. Oh, I expect we will have to brawl to keep our rights

and I also expect that we will and that we will win. We're the biggest minority in the country. :hi:

[CrispyQ]

18. Disgust.

K&R

[branders seine]

20. Obama hates everyone who is not rich.

It's the only explanation for his behavior.

[flyarm]

21. doesn't surprise me in the least...not one Iota! What does surprise me is so many here are Surprised

[another saigon]

30. nor I.

Every morning, before I read anything, I pause and think of the great Dorothy Parker quote....


"What Fresh Hell Is This?"

[IcyPeas]

23. also got an email from Planned Parenthood Action today......

with a sample letter to forward to Pres. Obama.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/hcrnwwff_af/i35xwk54h7566ed5?source=hcrnwwff_e1_af

[saracat]

24. Planned Parenthood Statement

Planned Parenthood's reaction to WH banning choice for women in high risk pools.

Enough is enough!


Dear ,

This is not what we worked for. This is not what we fought for.

You and I, and millions of Planned Parenthood supporters, fought
for a year to make sure that health care reform would provide
comprehensive coverage to every woman, man, and child in
America. We achieved some tremendous victories, including
defeating the Stupak amendment that would have banned private
insurance coverage of abortion for millions of women.

Now, a Stupak-like rule is back -- and it came from the Obama
administration. Tell the Obama administration to reverse this
decision and allow women to secure the coverage they need:

The final health care reform bill included extensive
restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion
coverage, but the decision announced by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services yesterday goes beyond even these
restrictions.

The Obama administration has decided that no woman in the new
high-risk insurance pools will be allowed to obtain abortion
coverage beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the
life of the woman). Not even if she pays for that coverage with
her own money.

We need to make sure the Obama administration knows this is
unacceptable. Click here to do your part and tell the Obama
administration to reverse this decision:

The high-risk insurance pools are for some of the most medically
vulnerable women in the country -- those with pre-existing
conditions such as breast and ovarian cancer, AIDS, diabetes,
and other conditions that may make pregnancy extraordinarily
dangerous. These women will be locked out from abortion
coverage, even if they pay for it out of their own pockets.

Tell the Obama administration to reverse this decision
immediately:
The president committed his administration to preventing any
federal funds from being spent on abortion care. But the fact
is, this announcement from HHS goes beyond that. Nothing in the
new health care reform law requires a ban on abortion coverage
in the high-risk pools. No law passed by Congress forced this
decision. The Obama administration has chosen to place a new
burden on ill and medically vulnerable women seeking abortion
coverage.

After all the amazing work and the unyielding dedication from
Planned Parenthood supporters like you that helped get us this
far, I can't just let that happen. This is not what we fought
for -- which means it's time to fight back against the Obama
administration's abortion coverage ban now.
Contact Planned Parenthood to sign the petition

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org /

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Stupak won

How despicable.

What's next from this administration?

[Greyhound]

27. There are at least three threads on this this today. n/t

[enlightenment]

29. Yes - now.

I posted this yesterday after receiving the message from the ACLU.

[yodermon]

31. Is there a link to this new policy?

I don't mean links to articles opining about the policy.
I'd like links to the actual new policy.
Preferably with a .gov address.