Share

A Step Backward for Women's Health Care?

by: Maya Schenwar, Executive Director, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: jrbrubaker, Thomas Hawk)

Monday evening, after a rousing speech in Philadelphia pushing for health reform passage, President Obama will celebrate International Women's Day with a White House reception honoring women around the world for their achievements.

This recognition is important. However, International Women's Day - the brainchild of a group of predominantly socialist women with revolutionary dreams of equality and basic human rights for all - presents an opportunity for a little more expansive thinking on the part of the Obama administration.

One item that's ripe for rethinking, ASAP: the gender discrimination that is burning a hole through the Senate health reform bill that's headed for a House vote next week.

Though the Senate bill lacks the Stupak stamp of shame, it certainly doesn't come up short in the department of reactionary anti-choice provisions. Currently, the vast majority of private health plans cover abortion procedures. The Senate plan endorsed by President Obama would severely complicate payments for abortion-inclusive plans, requiring individuals covered by those plans to write two separate checks - one to cover abortion procedures and one for all other coverage. Insurers then must deposit abortion payments and everything-else payments into two separate accounts.

Chances are, the new regulations would drive insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from their plans, according to health policy analysts. These eliminations would impact millions of Americans: more than one-third of adult women in the US have had at least one abortion. When it comes to choice, the health reform plan in its current state marks a dangerous step backward.

The bill's shortcomings for women don't stop at abortion. Earlier in the health-care-push season, Obama promised a plan that would eliminate "gender rating" - the practice of charging more for women's coverage than for men's. Gender rating is still going strong in 40 states. Insurance companies rally around the excuse that the policy is "actuarially based"; that women cost more to insure than men, mostly due to pregnancy- and birth-related medical care. Beneath that flimsy statistical veil, it's blatant discrimination: Insurance companies acknowledged that themselves 40 years ago when they abandoned race as a price-determining factor.

Despite the president's promise, the Senate bill upon which we're pinning our hopes for health reform would not eradicate gender rating. It would openly permit the practice for employers of businesses with 100 employees or more, giving large employers an obvious incentive to hire men over women to keep down insurance costs. Gender rating also puts businesses with a mostly female workforce - childcare centers, some school districts and nurse associations - at a disadvantage. According to the National Women's Law Center, "One such employer with a predominantly female workforce estimated that, due to gender rating, her annual premiums were $2,000 higher per employee."

As the health care debate drags on and on, there's a lot of shushing going around. Many leading Democrats are hoping to sweep the Senate bill's discriminatory flaws under the rug. After all, health reform is desperately needed, and it would be really nice to finally push a passable bill through before we all lose our sanity (not to mention our insurance).

However, as it stands, the health reform bill would endanger the basic human rights of many women. This International Women's Day, it's time for Congress and the president to stop ignoring the bill's consequences for women's health coverage - and start discussing options for averting them.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards calls for Congress to fix the legislation's abortion caveats during reconciliation - a move that could prove very difficult, since reconciliation is designed to address only items that are relevant to the budget. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check notes that the only route to a true repair job may be a "future bill aimed at making technical fixes to health reform."

Either way, the work to protect women's health coverage from these sweeping restrictions and limitations must begin now. As the International Women's Day reception festivities wind down at the White House tonight, the president should do some hard thinking about how to ensure the basic human right of health care for women here at home. 

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Share         

»


Maya Schenwar is Executive Director of Truthout.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

thank you Truthout for this

thank you Truthout for this substantive and illuminating piece. how insulting and stupid that women should pay more for having a womb: as if women were the only ones who benefit from the procreation of the human race. we should probably pay women for giving birth. heard it's painful stuff.

also, never knew that 1/3 of women had had an abortion. i wonder how many of those women are "pro-life."

Why can't the women of

Why can't the women of America do what a single man has been able to do, e.g., Joe Lieberman: refuse support unless changes are made?

Call Stupak's office and let

Call Stupak's office and let them know what you think. I called and did not let them hang up. I told the Stupak people I would contribute to any candidate running against him, even god help me, a republican. Next call your own rep. None of us should allow the Council of Catholic Bishops to sit in on 'negotiations'. None of us should be required to follow the religious rules of a congressperson's religion. Fight back before it is too late. I am old enough to remember when when it was illegal. The wealthy could leave the country and the rest of us were stuck. The anti-choice folks have birth control as the next issue to fight. Some pharmacies are allowing their pharmacists to deny birth control to women.

The previous speaker is

The previous speaker is right. People who care about women should call Stupak's office and saying we're funding his opponent. I refuse to vote for any politician at anytime who doesn't support legal abortions. The Senate bill is a dramatic step backwards for American women.

I had an illegal abortion and I hemorrhaged.

Obama's bill will force poor women to go to back alley butchers who will do terrible abortions leading to bad infections, hemorrhage and death. Rosaura Jimenez, a poor Mexican-American young woman, couldn't afford a legal abortion in the 1970s, went to an illegal quack, and died. Rembember Rosaura and fight back as hard as we can against this horrible bill.

Part of the problem with

Part of the problem with Stupak is very simple -- he will never need an abortion. He will never suffer rape, incest, failed contraception. an intrauterine death, an anencephalic fetus, cancer during pregnancy, or any other reproductive-tract tragedy, and neither will the bishops on the council who now outvote the American people. As for the Senate's not-much-better version, which Stupak has the gall to reject (I guess the bishops weren't in on the Senate's deliberations), I have a question: if this version passes, and women have to send in two separate checks, will they be allowed to send them in the same envelope, or will it cost them a second envelope and an extra stamp each month?

Is anyone planning a bill to

Is anyone planning a bill to make these fixes to women's health care after the health care bill passes? What can we do to make sure that happens?

Stupak is a complete waste

Stupak is a complete waste as an elected official, he has a government position but promotes anti-government attacks, and he is a traitor to all democrats. If only we could openly attack/disrespect the religious enemies inside our borders as rudely as they treat women’s rights, we could stop the right forever. [They attack our mothers, sister, wives and daughters constantly] Religious groups these days are beds of inequality, obviously run for the sole purpose to perpetuate male domination; they don’t seem to serve any other purpose in the 21st century. If we can not save women’s rights then we should be able to at least get in exchange a law passed that can lockout all religious ideologue from access to our elected officials. Make these purest a deal; let them continue to think they have control over women; in exchange we get rid of our countries real secular democrat traitors. A trade with the devil anyone?

Just asking....as a feminist

Just asking....as a feminist I have wondered... are we using our tax money to end the life of our unborn sisters? How can we champion our rights if we legislate the right to end the life of females in utero?

I agree with you "Just

I agree with you "Just Asking." I also wonder about the percentage of abortions from "rape, incest, failed contraception. an intrauterine death, an anencephalic fetus, cancer during pregnancy, or any other reproductive-tract tragedies" as opposed to those just conveniently end the lives of our unborn sisters. We worry about the suppressed rights of women in other countries but disregard these who deserve rights as well.