Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Right-Wing Lobbyists Try Scare Tactic of Abortion to Thwart Health Reform

By Dana Goldstein, The American Prospect. Posted July 15, 2009.


Using the false threat of taxpayer-funded abortion, lobbyists are attempting to scuttle support for a public option.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the -- Medicaid bill."

Those were the words of Illinois Sen. Henry Hyde, on the floor of Congress in 1977. Just four years earlier, Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion across the country. Almost immediately, opponents of reproductive rights began seeking out ways to limit access to the procedure. One of their major early successes was the Hyde Amendment, which, ever since 1976, has banned Medicaid -- the federal health insurance program for poor women and children -- from paying for abortions, except in the most extreme cases when a woman's physical health or life is in danger. Medicaid covers 7 million American women, or 12 percent of women of reproductive age. Federal employees, members of the U.S. military, Peace Corps volunteers, and prisoners are also barred from using their government health coverage to access abortion.

Will current health care reform efforts mean that for the first time since Roe, federal government dollars will pay directly for abortions? It's unlikely. But the religious right and its Republican enablers want grassroots conservatives to believe it will, hoping the resulting outcry will scuttle attempts to reform our expensive health care system and provide coverage for 47 million uninsured Americans. They are playing the abortion card.

In a widely circulated July 5 Washington Times op-ed, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote, "The House health reform plan covers 'family planning,' the well-worn buzz word that includes abortion unless specified to the contrary, and given the Democratic Party's commitment to abortion, it would be naive to assume, unless there is an explicit prohibition in the bill, that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not use her discretion to fund abortions with taxpayers' money." And in a letter to Congress, National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson warned, "A vote for this legislation, as drafted, is a vote for tax-subsidized abortion on demand."

This rhetoric is beyond hyperbolic -- it is downright deceptive. "When federal law discusses family planning, it never includes abortion," says Adam Sonfield, a senior policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health. "The federal government would never talk about it in that way."

In actuality, "family planning" language refers exclusively to contraceptive services, in part because of the Hyde Amendment. Yet so politicized is reproductive health, that even to offer birth control to poor women, individual states must apply for a waiver from Medicaid. Only half of states have done so. Though the legislative details are still being ironed out, the Health and Human Services secretary, when choosing what services to cover under any potential public insurance plan, will likely be bound by all of the existing laws that prevent the federal government from financing abortion, and that make even family planning coverage cumbersome.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, reproductive rights, hyde amendment, tony perkins, naral, family research council, healthcare reform, medicaid abortion

Dana Goldstein is associate editor of The American Prospect.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
RE: .
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 19, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This proposed bill will certainly certainly hike-up taxes for a large number of us citizens."

No it won't. Unless you make more than $250,000, you don't have to worry about it. Do you fit in that category? And if you do, why don't you think it's an appropriate way to fund health care for those who can't afford it?

I think your post is disingenuous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: I have a vested interest in abortion rights and a ballot.
Posted by: PJAW on Jul 18, 2009 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate your attempt at humor, but I have to tell you, you missed by a mile. You may get a lot of reactions though, so I guess that's something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: I have a vested interest in abortion rights and a ballot.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 18, 2009 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why ANY woman would want you anywhere near them is beyond me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ProfBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Jul 18, 2009 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we look at the modern day papal contributions to the idea that the soul enters the zygote along with the sperm (Pius IX's declaration in the years following 1850, then the 1917 addition of the idea into Catholic canon law) I wonder if all the anti-abortion people are Catholics or merely follow Catholic teaching on when the invisible soul enters the nearly invisible ovum. The discussion is too lengthy to get into here, but it is quite well done in the popular free ebook series "And Gulliver Returns" in Book 4 under 'Abortion.' It can be found at http://andgulliverreturns.info

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

america is so messed up
Posted by: jenna on Jul 18, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here in Canada, we have the most conservative government in power right now as we've had in 25 years or so, and we still have state-funded abortion. we always have, from the time we've had universal health care in the 70s. and it isn't necessary for women to have a life or health-threatening condition to access state-funded abortion, either - not since the late 80s, when legal restrictions to abortion were declared unconstitutional.

our problems are more about access - lack of doctors living in remote and underpopulated areas of the north and other rural areas mean many Canadian women have to travel to access an abortion. but you know what? the state-funded universal health care plan will pay not only for their abortion once they get to a provider, but also for travel expenses to get there.

america is so backwards. everyday i'm relieved i don't live there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: america is so messed up Posted by: luzmejor
Stupid is as Stupid Does
Posted by: freshlemon on Jul 18, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do so many idiots think that women are just lining up to have an abortion?

I am 67 years old and have lived and worked in 5 different states. I have never met or known any woman who has had an abortion or even thought about having an abortion.

This is, in my opinion, a stupid issue used to stir up the religious right and create paranoia.

It seems to be a male thing more than a female thing. Now isn't that strange. Gotta keep these libbers under control!

Any man who is threatened by women exercising control over their own lives and bodies is not a man. He's a user, just like Sanford et al who use women to satisfy their own lusts to the detriment of his family and constituency.

If there is a Satan, he's working overtime in Congress and churches all over the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupid is as Stupid Does Posted by: morticia
Roe and Medicaid abortions were to target certain populations, according to Ginsburg
Posted by: VeryBlessed on Jul 18, 2009 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

N.Y. Times

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get Rid
Posted by: osd on Jul 18, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the Lobbists in Washington. Let them go find real jobs, oh ya, there aren't very many of them anymore. So maybe we should let those snake oil sales men/women starve. Corp. control over everything that goes on in Washington is just plain wrong. Being in government and on the TAKE is even more WRONG. For all this so called RELIGIOUS control that religions want, why are there so many dishonest people in Washington? Just more snake oil salesmen who think, that snake will never bite them in there ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressman Henry Hyde
Posted by: Arlene on Jul 18, 2009 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Henry Hyde was a member of the Illinois House, I had the dubious pleasure of lobbying him to vote for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the early 1980's. Illinois failed to ratify.

Henry Hyde would had given Jefferson Beauregard Sessions a good run for his money in demonstrating contempt for women. Defunding abortion was to be the first wedge in dismantling government funded medical care and other social programs enacted during the Johnson administration.

I will not support any public option that stigmatizes abortion. Poor women, native women, and women in the military need to stop being used as producers of the next generation of cheap labor and cannon fodder.

If, indeed, the lawmakers wish to stigmatize abortion out of concern for the unborn, then they should be consistent and refuse to also fund stem cell research, erectile dysfunction drugs and assisted reproductive technology. The U.S. ranks below even Cuba in maternal and infant mortality, around 37th amongst the nations of the world. Sixty years ago, the U.S. led all countries on quality of life issues. Faith-based medical practice gets funded by government, but not science-based medicine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Are Our Salesmen?
Posted by: Lilly on Jul 18, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am starting to panic that the Democrats are doing such a poor job of selling this program to the public because the Republicans are working like hell to sabotage and sink it. Townhall.com has multiple articles every day, often reprinted from other media, distorting Obamacare in ridiculous ways. They are saying that doctors will be forced to do abortions, that abortions will be mandatory, that the wait for care will be a year or two, that old people will be denied care, and that people will be "forced to take medications they don't want". I feel as if our side isn't sufficiently countering this stuff that the Right Wing is churning out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Speak up for yourselves! Posted by: luzmejor
minus 7 equal 9
Posted by: itouch backup on Jul 21, 2009 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How cruel
Posted by: hahaho on Jul 30, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How cruel of these privileged people to be so hurtful to these children. What will these kids take away from this experience? And what will the white children at the pool learn from this? Honesty may be a virtue, but not when one is honest about being a cruel-hearted, unintelligent, un-informed bigot. links of london
tiffany

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement