Two newspapers recently published opinion pieces examining abortion-related issues in the health reform debate. Summaries appear below.
~ Renee Loth, Boston Globe: Conservative critics of health care reform are "aiming at another mythical target in the bill: 'abortion mandates,'" Globe columnist Loth writes. Coverage for abortion services is becoming "the subject of confusion and disinformation," despite the fact that "bills filed in various congressional committees are officially neutral on the question, neither requiring nor forbidding private insurance plans to offer abortion services," Loth writes. "To quell the rising hysteria," the House Energy and Commerce Committee adopted the Capps Amendment, which "explicitly prohibits abortion services from being included in the 'minimum benefits package' that all participating insurance plans would be required to offer," according to Loth. The amendment also would "mak[e] clear that not a dime of the proposed 'affordability credits' to help families buy insurance could go to pay for abortions," she writes. In addition, the amendment would maintain protections for providers who refuse to perform abortion and preserve the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents the use of federal Medicaid dollars for abortion services. The House bill "makes a good stab" at finding "common ground on abortion," and it is "hard to see why opponents continue to flog the issue -- except that sowing confusion and controversy will only help delay or even defeat the overhaul bill," Loth writes. "No one wants to see the health care overhaul founder on a single issue," but "neither should women's reproductive health be compromised away in an effort to buy increasingly unlikely bipartisan support," she continues. Loth concludes that those who oppose coverage of abortion services "will not be satisfied until the health care system eliminates a safe, legal medical procedure that trusts women to make the right choices about their own lives. Going back to the drawing board shouldn't send women back to the dark ages" (Loth, Boston Globe, 8/21).
~ Michael Gerson, Washington Post: While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the U.S. health system is "achieving wonders of longevity" as people are living longer, it is "increasingly clear" that Democrats' health care reform proposals "would disrupt this rough equilibrium," Post columnist Gerson writes. According to Gerson, the House health reform bill's (HR 3200) approach to abortion coverage "in federally subsidized insurance plans is presented as a compromise" because the services "would be funded out of the premiums that come from individuals, not money from taxpayers." However, "this is a cover, if not a con," he writes. Gerson continues, "By the nature of health insurance, premiums are not devoted to specific procedures; they support insurance plans. ... If the federal government directly funds an insurance plan that includes elective abortion, it cannot claim it is not paying for elective abortions." Although "any national approach to this issue is likely to challenge the current social consensus on abortion," the House bill "would result in federal funding for abortion on an unprecedented scale," Gerson says. He adds that "forbidding funds to private insurers that currently cover elective abortions (as some insurers do) would amount, as pro-choice advocates note, to a restriction on the availability of abortion." He concludes, "Either way, government will send a powerful, controversial social signal" (Gerson, Washington Post, 8/21).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Buy Epogen Without Prescription
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий