Category: Updates

Protection for Doctors Who Lie to Women

There is little question that the new health care law which erodes abortion rights has triggered a torrent of radical anti-choice legislation.

Mary Alice Carr of the National Institute for Reproductive Health explains more about the Oklahoma legislation that protects doctors who withhold information from pregnant women about the health of the fetuses,

“As a reproductive rights advocate and a proud mother of two, my blood ran cold as I read about Oklahoma’s new abortion legislation (HB 2656). The state of Oklahoma just decided, and by an appallingly high margin I might add, that a doctor is protected from being sued if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect.

State legislators made this decision Tuesday, voting 36-12 in the Senate and 84-12 in the House to override Gov. Brad Henry’s veto of this law. (The Legislature also overrode the governor’s veto of a second egregious law, HB 2780, which forces women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion.)

Oklahoma, what have you done?

Under this new law, a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to consider abortion.

As expected, the anti-abortion movement is claiming victory. But this bill isn’t “anti-abortion.” It is devastating because it is anti-motherhood and anti-medicine.

When I found out I was pregnant with each of my children, like every woman who has ever undergone fetal testing, I held my breath at each doctor’s appointment. I didn’t let it go until the doctor or the tech said, “Everything looks great.” I seized up when they took out the blood work results and I didn’t relax until I heard, “It all came back negative.”

But a woman in Oklahoma no longer gets to exhale. Because now, when a doctor says, “Everything looks fine,” she has to wonder; does it really? Oklahoma politicians have now said that she can no longer count on the sacred trust that always existed between her and her doctor. A doctor may now lie to her face and, in doing so, deny a woman what is quite possibly the most important piece of information she will ever receive in her life.

The very thought makes my breath catch even now. The information you get on those visits matters to every woman getting prenatal care, regardless of what she decides to do based upon the results. The legislators have decided that a woman, when she becomes pregnant, loses the right to full, honest information from her doctor.

It is her right to know this information. It is how she and her family determine what to do next, not only to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy, but also to consider how they will prepare to care for a special needs child.

What specialist will they turn to? What support will they require? Who will hold their hand in the delivery room if a child is born who will only live an hour, or a day? Does she want to call her own mom in from across the country or does she want to grieve silently with her partner? What will they tell the children they already have?

Doesn’t every family have the right to the information that may help them decide the course of their future or the future of their child? According to the Oklahoma State Legislature, they no longer do.

These politicians have decided they know best what women need. They are wrong.

I ask each politician in Oklahoma who voted yes on this bill: How dare you? How dare you deny a woman the peace of mind that her baby is healthy? How dare you not give her and her family time to prepare if, God forbid, her baby is not? How is this bill “pro-life”? How is this mockery of medical care and paternalistic devaluing of women, “pro-life”?

This bill is anti-mom, it’s anti-doctor and it is anti-family. And all women, regardless of how they feel about abortion, should be appalled. I hope the courts stand up for the women and families whom politicians have turned their backs on and find this law unconstitutional and flat-out wrong.”

Oklahoma upholds extreme abortion laws

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures.

One of the measures protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry said:

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient”

The other measure requires that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion. There is no exception for rape or incest victims.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

Mexico denies ten-year-old rape victim abortion

From CNN:

A pregnant 10-year-old, allegedly raped by her stepfather, has become the latest lightning rod in the country’s heated abortion debate.

The girl’s stepfather has been arrested. But advocates on both sides of the issue say their battle is just beginning.

Abortion is legal in Mexico’s capital city, but prohibited or significantly restricted in most of the country’s states. The girl’s home state of Quintana Roo, on the Yucatan peninsula, allows abortion in cases of rape during the first 90 days of the pregnancy. But the 10-year-old girl is at 17½ weeks, nearly a month past that limit.

While this is an extreme case, it illustrates why its necessary to protect 2nd trimester abortions. The very young, who may be scared or victimized, often need more time to seek help.

The church and anti-choice extremists advocate for the “protection” of fetuses and embryos. Who is advocating for young women who are sexually abused?

In Massachusetts, President Obama’s Executive Order Adversely Impacting Abortion Rights!!

Today, March 24th, The Boston Globe reported on the immediate negative impact that the health reform law and President Obama’s executive order could have on Massachusetts’ policy on abortion coverage in its state health insurance exchange.

“The executive order Obama is scheduled to sign [today] directs federal administrators to establish guidelines within six months to help states comply with the new law. Under the new federal law, any insurance plans sold in state-based exchanges that offer abortion coverage and have customers who receive federal subsidies must collect two separate premium payments per month — one for the abortion coverage and one for the rest of the premium. The check for the abortion coverage must come from private funds and remain segregated from federal money.

“Insurance plans participating in the state’s exchange — called the Massachusetts Connector — are required to offer abortion coverage, and the state has a system in place to ensure that federal money does not pay for the coverage, as required by federal law. Terry Dougherty, Medicaid director with the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said an independent actuary determines the value of every benefit in an individual’s health plan, minus the value of abortion coverage and patient copayments. That amount is submitted to the federal government for partial reimbursement, and the reimbursement is placed in the state general fund. According to the Globe, an abortion procedure is typically valued at less than $1 per enrollee per month.

“A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it is too early to know what effect the federal law could have on companies that sell federally subsidized plans in the Massachusetts exchange. Abortion-rights advocates say the new federal system “will not only be inconvenient for consumers … but could hinder access to abortions by causing insurers to pull out” of the exchanges, the Globe reports. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Executive Director Andrea Miller said, “It’s a chilling effect.” She added, “Any time you add additional steps that people have to take in order to obtain health services, you have a drop-off, and you have a burden, even for something like picking up a prescription” (Lazar, Boston Globe, 3/24). The National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Report 3/24/2010

President Obama Betrays Women with Abortion Restriction Deal

Choice Matters stands with the Center for Reproductive Rights in being “deeply disappointment with President Obama’s decision to issue an executive order on abortion restrictions after the House of Representatives approves the healthcare bill. The order, intended to secure support from anti-choice Democrats for healthcare reform legislation, essentially imports the Hyde Amendment strictures to an executive order.

“The President’s decision to issue an executive order designed to assuage Representative Stupak and his cohorts is a betrayal of millions of women across this country and of his campaign promises. The order lends credibility to an already impossibly flawed policy that punishes and discriminates against poor women by denying them the full range of reproductive health services and their constitutional right. Current policy known as the Hyde Amendment was denounced by President Obama himself as a presidential candidate.

“Current law withholds funding for abortion under Medicaid and other federal programs even though the service is one of the most common procedures for American women. For millions of women, these federal programs are their sole means of getting health services, including reproductive healthcare. Abortion is the only medically necessary health service excluded from this coverage. Failure to provide insurance coverage for a medical procedure that only women need is discrimination.

“It is unacceptable that a pro-choice President has put his imprimatur on a highly restrictive and unjust anti-choice measure. Early on in this debate a good faith compromise supported by pro-choice groups was tossed out to appease Representative Stupak and his cohorts. It is tragic that, under a pro-choice administration and a Democratic majority in Congress, harmful anti-choice policy will be the price American women will pay for healthcare reform.” Nancy Northup, president, Center for Reproductive Rights.

Choice Matters supports National NOW President Terry O’Neill
in her statement, “Through this order, the President has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass. President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn’t disagree more.”

Sunday’s Health Care Legislation
The health care bill that passed the House of Representatives yesterday imposes unfair and unnecessary burdens on women who choose to purchase abortion coverage and this will expand significantly the pool of women who are not able to get coverage for this basic reproductive health care. Insurance companies have already stated they will not provide abortion coverage because of the bureaucratic nightmare instituted by this legislation. The legislation also permits states to refuse entirely to allow private insurance coverage of abortion in plans offered through state insurance exchanges.

More than 85 percent of private plans cover abortion care today. Those plans will not provide this coverage under the health care bill passed yesterday.

This legislation also include a one-sided “conscience clause” that protects health providers or payers that oppose abortion, but fails to protect those providers who honor women’s right to this legal health service.

What happened to President Obama’s promise to the American people: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”?

Health Care legislation at the expense of women’s rights is not reform.

Moving Women’s Health Care Backwards?

A Step Backward for Women’s Health Care?
by Maya Schenwar, Executive Director, truthout, 3/8/2010

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

Questions to Ponder from Choice Matters
Where are the leaders of 2010?
When did we forget how to demand to be counted?
When will women say “No More” and mean it?

Can a Truly Pro-Choice President Support the Nelson Amendment?

On February 23rd the President released his health care proposal and IT INCLUDES THE NELSON AMENDMENT! Tomorrow he will hold a meeting with Democrats and Republicans to create a health care plan.

 This is NOT the Pro-Choice  President we were promised in November 2008!

 The stark reality is that the President’s bill which is modeled after the Senate bill, as it now stands, will result in greater restrictions to access to abortion than any federal law.

 By adopting the Nelson Amendment, the President has basically incorporated  the Stupak Amendment!

The President’s bill, if adopted as it is now written, is a betrayal of all women, and specifically targets middle income and lower income women, and students.

Say NO! Click here to send a post card to President Obama, your senators, and your House delegates telling them No to the Nelson and Stupak Amendments. 

 The President’s Proposal=the Nelson Amendment=the Stupak Amendment

 If signed into law, abortion coverage that women can now obtain will be gone. Insurance companies are already on record saying they will not provide abortion coverage because they cannot afford the onerous obstacles this proposal puts in their path.

 The end result is the same: no abortion coverage in health care reform.

For details about these two amendments click:

The Stupak and Nelson Amendments – Know the Facts

 We must demand that the President drop the Nelson/Stupak amendments from his bill AND that our Senators refuse to support any bill that includes these amendments.

Abortion to be Lost in Reconciliation Process

Health Care Reform Is Far From Dead

President Obama is meeting with Democrats and Republicans in the coming days to try to work out a health care plan.

Very soon, the House and Senate bills will be combined into a single bill—probably through reconciliation* which requires only 51 votes—and then it goes to the President to be signed into law.

The stark reality is that both the House and Senate bills, as they now stand, go further to restrict abortion than any federal law.

The Nelson Amendment = the Stupak Amendment!
The Stupak amendment in the House bill and the Nelson amendment in the Senate bill are one and the same. They will both take away any insurance coverage for abortion that women can now obtain.The only difference is that the Stupak amendment bans abortion coverage outright while the Nelson amendment does it by placing such onerous obstacles in the path of insurance companies that they cannot afford to provide coverage.

The end result is the same: no abortion coverage in health care reform.

For details about these two amendments click:
 
We must demand that the Stupak and Nelson amendments both be dropped from any bill passed by Congress!
 
Here’s The Proof!
The president and CEO of Affinity Health Plan, Maura Bluestone writes, …“Although not outright banning abortion coverage, the Senate provision would thus effectively eliminate the availability of such coverage.”

Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler explains why the Nelson language will lead to insurers dropping abortion coverage.  (Click Here to Read Com. Kriedler’s Letter.)

Professor Karen Pollitz writes, “One must question whether any insurer would bother offering abortion coverage at the cost of so much red tape.” “Because health reform also requires insurers to increase their loss ratios, the two-check requirement makes it doubtful that insurers would offer abortion coverage at all.” (Click Here to Read Prof. Pollitz’s Analysis.)

(*Reconciliation is a legislative process introduced in 1974 which is intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Reconciliation bills have special Senate protection and are allowed to pass by simple majority votes, after limited debate.) 

Peter Harckham for New York State Assembly!

WCLA – Choice Matters Endorses Peter Harckham for New York State Assembly!

“Peter Harckham has stood up for women’s reproductive health as a County Legislator and will continue to do so in Albany. Harckham is a strong fresh voice for women. He supports a woman’s right to choose and understands the reproductive health issues confronting women.”
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, President, WCLA – Choice Matters

Tuesday, February 9th, there is a Special Election in the 89th Assembly District to determine who will represent YOU in the New York State Assembly if you live in Mount Kisco, Bedford, Pound Ridge, Lewisboro, Harrison, North Castle, New Castle, and White Plains.

This seat became vacant when Adam Bradley was overwhelmingly elected Mayor of White Plains.

Please remember to vote if you live in this district, and, if you know anyone who lives there, please let them know how important this Special Election is.

In a Special Election–where the turnout is historically low–every vote matters.

Your one vote could change the outcome of this election.

Please share this post!