
I'll admit it: Yesterday was a Bela day. Despite a gloriously warm November breeze, I woke up early to set up shop in a sunny corner of the law school library. For the rest of the day, I manned camp and sneered at the bleary-eyed 1L's attempting to encroach on my prime real estate with their energy shots and frayed bluebooks. Then, I returned home, promptly put on my jammies and dwadled amongst piles of legalness.
Meanwhile, the House passed HR 3962, aka monumental healthcare reform. The news media really spun out its 24-hour news wheels yesterday for this one. Quick, CNN, show me that footage of the empty chamber room again. At approximately 11:15 pm, I watched as History Was Made. Applause applause. Pelosi says the bill has passed. Gavel. Huzzahs. Hoorays.
I'm not even sure I fully understand what's IN the House's bill. Does anyone? But, the one component that I am cognizant of is the Stupak/Pitts Amendment. Like so many crimes against women, the Stupak/Pitts vote assaulted us in the middle of the night, openly, amid the rushed minutes before Congressional climax. And now, after the fact, people point fingers as to who said yes to what.
The Stupak/Pitts Amendment tightens restrictions on abortion access in an unprecedented way. Private companies involved with the public exchange program established within HR 3962 may not fund or subsidize the cost of abortion at all. Impoverished American women receiving healthcare under the expanded public option would be similarly barred.
Doubtful? Read it for yourself. (I love the NYT).
This last minute trade cannot be ignored. In a brief piece last night,
Ezra Klein quips:
If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.
The irony of containing this provision in a bill meant to expand national healthcare coverage is almost laughable. In addition to lowering costs across the board, the healthcare push is intended to provide primary insurance for Americans who are
currently unable to afford it. These impoverished women make up a disproportionate size of the population that currently need - and will continue to need - abortions.
The Amendment allows for women to purchase "separate supplemental coverage plans", but the idea that families will dive further into the bureaucracy of insurance to purchase a special Abortion-Allowance plan is detached and ridiculous.
I firmly believe that the Choice/Life rhetoric is antiquated. Being Pro-Choice does not mean being Anti-Life. I love life. Furthermore, The Abortion Debate is not appropriate for legislation primarily focused on funding and coverage. The legality of abortion has already been determined by the S.Ct in
Roe v. Wade. It's legal. So long as this is the case (and who knows how long that will be), it is insane that public funds would be barred from providing safe medical care for a
legally recognized medical procedure.
Some proponents argue, unlike other necessary medical procedures, abortions are easily avoidable "conditions." Through the effective execution of "preventive" medicine like birth control, condoms, and - fine - abstinence, abortions wouldn't be necessary. The cost of correction for such carelessness is too high. Oh? Preventive medicine also includes eating right, exercising weekly, and avoiding McDonalds three times a day. However, in the unfortunate circumstance that someone develops Type 2 Diabetes from failing to do those very things, the government does not mandate them to a life without insulin. While I agree that prevention techniques are important, in the unfortunate circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy, there should not be the maze of restricted access which the Stupak Amendment creates.
Others further argue that gastric bypasses and plastic surgery (facelifts, etc.) are legal medical procedures that also won't receive funding. The difference is that those procedures are largely cosmetic, and not primary care. The outcome of not being able to afford a facelift? I get to keep the face I was given. The outcome of not being able to afford an abortion?
A world of change.
In the meantime, I don't want to detract from the very real work that Pelosi and the House has done in wrangling the 220 votes to Make History. However, I will hold my applause and celebration so long as it continues to come at the bartered expense of women's self-integrity.
Currently Listening:
Mike Posner - "I Don't Trust Myself"