Women Lawmakers Oppose Anti-Choice Clause In Health Care Reform Bill

Gillibrand emphasized: “Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous. Without proper coverage women will be forced to postpone care, while attempting to find the money they need to pay for it...” U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D–New York), joined by several other women legislators and public officials and abortion advocates, called last week for the defeat of an anti-abortion proposal that would deny millions of women access to reproductive care in any healthcare reform measure that becomes law.

Among Gillibrand’s supporters were Congressmembers Carolyn Maloney (D– Queens/Manhattan) and Nydia Velazquez (D– Queens/Brooklyn) and outgoing New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.

Gillibrand led the rally against a proposal by Congressmember Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, that was included in the Democratic healthcare reform bill which passed the House recently. The clause would prevent women from purchasing reproductive insurance with their own money.

Maloney pointed out, “The Stupak Amendment isn’t just about federal funds going to abortion. This isn’t the Hyde Amendment, which bans taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. This goes way beyond that—further than any current federal law.” Gillibrand declared: “A lack of access to full reproductive health care puts the lives of women and young girls at grave risk. This antichoice measure poses greater restriction on lowincome women and those who are more likely to receive some kind of subsidy and [are] less likely to be able to afford a supplemental insurance policy.”

Gillibrand emphasized: “Denying lowincome women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous. Without proper coverage women will be forced to postpone care, while attempting to find the money they need to pay for it. Or these women will be forced to return to dangerous, back alley providers. Women and girls deserve better.”

Gillibrand pointed out that the Stupak Amendment will prohibit private insurers from offering coverage through the proposed federal healthcare exchange from covering abortion services, even for women buying insurance with their own funds. This “dangerous and drastic” change to existing law, she said, would force insurance companies that currently provide abortion coverage to choose between continuing that coverage or dropping it for all women if they want to participate in health insurance exchanges.

If such a proposal goes through, it would be the first restriction on women purchasing insurance with their own dollars. Gillibrand says the measure reaches far beyond the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs.

According to estimates, Gillibrand pointed out, the new exchanges would offer coverage to many of the 17 million women ages 18 to 64 who are uninsured, and would be a source of coverage for the 5.7 million women who are now purchasing coverage in the individual market. Small employers, with fewer than 100 employees, are also likely to move to the exchange for more affordable options. Women who presently have healthcare coverage that includes reproductive care would lose that coverage under the Stupak Amendment.

Maloney pointed out, “The Stupak Amendment isn’t just about federal funds going to abortion. This isn’t the Hyde Amendment, which bans taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. This goes way beyond that—further than any current federal law.”

Velazquez stated, “Health care reform cannot come at the expense of women’s rights. We are working to eradicate years of discrimination and inequity in our healthcare system, not create new restrictions that hurt working women and prevent them from purchasing coverage with their own money.”

Gotbaum added, “The Stupak Amendment is a gross insult to women, advocates for choice, and voters who support health reform. We cannot allow women’s rights to be sacrificed for political gain.”