The instantly famous Stupak-Pitts amendment blocks federal funding for abortions in the public option, except in cases of rape, incest, and if the woman’s life is endangered. It also forbids insurance companies from providing abortion coverage to individuals receiving federal subsidies for private insurance. The amendment became a part of the House’s health care reform bill on Saturday night as a means of securing enough votes from conservative Democrats to pass the bill.
The amendment has riled up pro-choice groups who are denouncing the amendment as an attack on women’s right to choose. Others are defending the bill by arguing that the amendment does not forbid abortions, it simply prevents federal money from being spent to provide them except in the specified exceptions.
One study found the overwhelming majority of abortions are chosen because of “personal reasons” such as financial hardship, life goals, and relationship problems. Additionally, the study found one percent of abortions occur because of rape and less than half of one percent because of incest. Statistics like these have been used in the abortion debate, specifically regarding federal funding. Since so many abortions are for pregnancies that have not been forced on women and that are not causing physical harm, federal dollars should not fund this majority of abortions because a significant portion of the American public is morally opposed to them. Women can still get abortions and can still seek insurance policies that cover them, but the public option will not fund them.
The argument seems to make sense as a way to keep healthcare reform “abortion neutral” in order to preserve the status quo on federal funding for abortions. There are many opinions floating around about how the Stupak amendment will actually place serious restrictions on a woman’s right to get an abortion (links below), but I want to think about a different issue.
The amendment, in essence, says that the government will pay for a woman’s abortion only if the pregnancy was beyond her control or if it risks her life. Any other reason is beyond the range the government is willing to include. As a part of the healthcare reform debate, this raises the question of whether the bill solves the problems it seeks to remedy. Beyond the exceptions made in the amendment, abortions are painted as something a woman has full control to prevent (by abstinence, use of contraception, making different choices). Basically, it’s seen as a preventable circumstance that will not be covered because of the controversy around abortions.
At the same time, healthcare reform legislation allows the public option to support people suffering from all types of ailments caused by their own decisions in life including smoking (lung cancer), drinking (kidney failure), and owning a firearm (accidental shooting). In light of this, legislation that chooses not to fund a medical procedure such as abortion because it is too touchy politically suffers from the same discriminatory practices it is supposed to be fixing.
Related Reading
Who subsidizes abortion? (The Nation) – (Hint: They hate abortions)
Preserving federal policy on abortion (Washington Post) - Stupak claims that his amendment preserves the status quo on abortion
Abortion amendment would hurt women’s rights (ABC News) – The other side of the Stupak issue claiming that the amendment will cause a domino effect of greater restrictions on women.
