The odious anti-woman anti-abortion amendment which the Democratic Caucus was extorted into passing as part of the health care overhaul has stirred up passions among Democratic women and (mostly) Democratic men. It is being (not quite accurately) hailed as the biggest setback for the pro-choice movement and for women in general in three decades. Proponents and opponents are moving towards positions so intractable that it now appears that health reform cannot be passed with it nor can it be passed without it. The Senate, never a body to be outdone when it comes to overwrought obstinacy, will soon be moving to double down on the Stupak language, threatening to derail the Senate bill before cloture has even been invoked on whether to debate it at all. (The denial of women’s rights to control their own bodies in not rightly within the purview of Congress. That’s why we have the Roberts Supreme Court. We really need to elect more women to Congress.)
My own view is that abortion is not even among the top three issues which threaten healthcare reform (perhaps coming in fifth after how to pay for it, employer mandates, the public option and adequacy of subsidies).
Explanation after the jump:
If the Stupak language remains intact, women who receive any subsidies (family income under $88,000) or enroll in a public plan will be unable to use their insurance to pay for abortions (except for rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother). What does this mean for women?
It does not mean that they can’t get abortions; it will mean that they have to pay for them. Abortions (first trimester) are very short, simple medical procedures. They generally cost under $ 500. The great majority of women who would be denied payment for this procedure are currently uninsured and are therefore are not losing any benefits they have now. Some currently insured women (not Medicaid recipients who are already disallowed from federal funds for abortion) will give up the protection they now enjoy, but they represent a minority of a minority. To sum up, while the Stupak language is motivated by the desire of mostly Christianist men to subjugate women in perpetuity, the loss to women can be measured in dollars that pale in comparison to the overall breadth of the bill. ($5 billion vs. $1 trillion or 1/200 of the bills overall funding based on 1 million abortions a year.)
Let’s consider what these women gain for their sacrifice. About 10-15 million previously uninsured women will now have access to medical care. How many cases of early breast cancer which would previously have gone undetected will now be arrested before they can cause great tragedy or even death? Cervical cancer? Osteoporosis? The list goes on. It’s not even close. The availability of quality, affordable healthcare vastly outweighs the loss of an abortion benefit which was not available to most of these women anyway.
As a progressive, were I unfortunate enough to find myself in Congress having to vote on the overall bill, I would have to consider the aforementioned as well as the millions of people, many of them very poor or very ill, who would be denied insurance by a no vote. The cost-benefit analysis here is not even a close call. As disgusting and hateful it is that there are those in Congress who would attempt to foist their (in my opinion) misguided opinions and prejudices upon the rest of us, I would have to suck it up and vote "aye."
A final point which has been overlooked in the abortion debate is the role of insurance companies. Insurance companies would much rather pay for a $ 500 abortion than a $15-20,000 baby (much, much higher for preemies, fetal alcohol syndrome, AIDS babies and others born with defects). I would expect insurance companies to offer to all its women policyholders a policy covering abortion, outside and separate from the insurance exchange, at no cost. It’s good business for them and their only religion and prejudice is green.