Blogs Comment On Health Reform, Appropriations Bill, Military Abortion Ban

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Shocker: Nelson Rejects Abortion Compromise," Amy Sullivan, Time's "Swampland": Sullivan says that in her efforts to blog about a potential abortion compromise in the Senate, she "couldn't get past one basic fact: there was no possible abortion compromise that could ever win Ben Nelson's vote." She adds, "We could pretend otherwise, but it just wasn't so." A "red flag should have been the fact that Nelson sent [Sen. Robert] Casey's (D-Pa.) proposed language to antiabortion groups in Nebraska for their review," Sullivan writes. Although there is "nothing wrong with running legislative language by people who closely cover the issue," it does "indicate that what's at stake here is not Nelson's personal comfort with the separation of government funds from abortion procedures so much as the comfort of interest groups with his pro-life credentials," she continues. "So now we're back where we started," and "it remains completely unclear" what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would need to do to gain a Republican vote to offset Nelson's, Sullivan says (Sullivan, "Swampland," Time, 12/17).

~ "The Welcome End of Abstinence-Only Sex Education," Bonnie Erbe, U.S. News & World Report's "Thomas Jefferson Street": "[N]ormalcy is about to return" on the issue of sex education, as the fiscal year 2010 omnibus appropriations bill (HR 3288) " just approved by Congress eliminates funding for abstinence-only education," Erbe writes. "Back to the future we go," she continues, noting that "[t]here was a time in America when there was no such thing as abstinence-only education." According to Erbe, "Biologically accurate sex education has always taught teens that the only completely reliable way" to avoid sexually transmitted infections is "to abstain from sex." She writes, "But can you imagine what would happen if liberals tried to press a version of sex education that only encouraged teens to have sex, without teaching them how to avoid [STIs] and pregnancy?" Erbe says, "That would be the polar opposite of 'abstinence-only' education. And yet the public would be in an uproar" (Erbe, "Thomas Jefferson Street," U.S. News & World Report, 12/16).

~ "Choice in the Military: Crocodiles or Piranhas," Kate Harding, Salon's "Broadsheet": Prohibiting women in the military from receiving abortion services "does not stop women from seeking to end unwanted pregnancies; it drives them to risk their own lives and health to do so," Harding writes, noting that attempts at self-abortion have "continued ... thanks to restrictions on when and where abortions can be performed and who pays for them." Harding discusses Kathryn Joyce's recent article in Religion Dispatches examining the effects of the ban on abortion services at military hospitals, which Joyce says creates "just one more category of women ... who fall into the canyons created by sweeping bans on federal funding for abortion." Antiabortion-rights provisions in health care reform legislation "threaten to add middle-class women to the list -- meaning we'd essentially be right back in 1972, with safe abortion services available only to wealthy women who can afford to skirt the restrictions," Harding writes. While the military ban "may seem like a low-priority issue to pro-choice activists who aren't among the 200,000 female service members ... directly affected by it," it is a "sobering example of how cutting off access to abortion services endangers people's health and lives," she says (Harding, "Broadsheet," Salon, 12/15).














~ "While Lieberman Screws Over Public Options, Nelson Still in Control of Abortion Coverage for Millions of Women," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) "is back in the saddle" after the Senate rejected his amendment prohibiting federally subsidized insurance plans from covering abortion services, a proposal similar to an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that the House approved in November, Jacobson writes. Nelson is "apparently negotiating abortion language behind closed doors" with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Jacobson says, adding that Nelson recently said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he "still [has] the unique issue of abortion" and that he cannot support the Senate's bill if the current language is not changed. Jacobson writes, "Actually, no. It is women that have the 'unique' issue of pregnancy, childbirth and the unique choices that come with their biological capacity for reproduction." She adds that the "only 'unique' thing about Nelson (and Stupak) is that it is uniquely disturbing that a bunch of white male senators and congressman who will never be at risk of pregnancy are struggling so hard to impose their religious and ideological views on the entire population of women" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 12/16).

~ "Could Ben Nelson Kill Health Care Reform?" Max Fisher, Atlantic Monthly's "The Atlantic Wire": On Tuesday, Nelson told reporters "that he may not support health care reform as it stands now" because he is not satisfied with the provisions regarding abortion coverage under federally subsidized insurance plans, Fisher writes. He asks, "With one vote the difference between passing and failing, ... could the loss of Nelson [be] reform's death knell?" Fisher examines five recent blog postings regarding the issue, including the role of Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) vote and rumors that the closure of an Air Force base in Nebraska is being used as a bargaining chip with Nelson (Fisher, "The Atlantic Wire," Atlantic Monthly, 12/16).

~ "Catholic Bishops Hold the Line on Abortion Language," Jordan Fabian, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room": The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Tuesday "reiterated its support for the addition of more stringent abortion language into the Senate's health care bill," after sending a letter to senators over the weekend "asking them once again to insert abortion language similar" to Nelson's rejected amendment, Fabian writes. The letter, signed by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, said, "Health care reform is too urgently needed to be placed at risk by one lobbying group's insistence on changing the law." It also said, "Before the Senate considers final votes on its health care reform legislation, please incorporate into this bill the longstanding and widely supported policies of current law" (Fabian, "Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 12/15).

~ "How Health Care Reform Means More Access to Abortion, Not Less," Daniel Hemel, Double X: "No one seems to have much noticed, but the health care bills winding their way through Congress will do more to expand abortion access in low-income communities than any single step since the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade," Hemel, a Yale Law School student, writes. Hemel explains how under the Senate (HR 3590) and House (HR 3962) health reform bills, Medicaid coverage will be expanded to more people. Although the Medicaid expansion itself "won't increase abortion access" because of the Hyde Amendment's ban on states' use of federal Medicaid money for abortion services, the fact that Medicaid is a "joint federal-state program" means increased access, he argues. "[I]n 13 states, courts have ordered state governments to use their own money to fund abortions for women who receive Medicaid -- of whom there will be millions more post-health care reform," Hemel says, adding that the Hyde Amendment "doesn't stop the states from paying for abortion on their own." According to Hemel, "30% of Americans live in states under court order to cover abortion costs for Medicaid recipients" (Hemel, Double X, 12/15).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.