JCB ZJX World News and Current Events

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Oklahoma County District Judge Daniel Owens on Friday extended a temporary restraining order blocking a state law that would require a woman seeking an abortion to complete a 10-page questionnaire about her age, race, relationship with her partner, reasons for the procedure and other personal information, which would be posted with out her name on a public Web site, CNN reports. Owens denied the state’s motion to dismiss the Center for Reproductive Rights’ lawsuit challenging the law, putting the problem on hold until a Feb. 19 hearing.

CRR filed the suit on behalf of former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton (D) and another Oklahoma resident. Jennifer Mondino, an attorney with CRR, said, “We are quite pleased with today’s ruling. This law is actually a profound intrusion on women’s privacy and a waste of taxpayers’ money.” Stapleton said, “Nosy neighbors with some effort could identify, or even worse, misidentify these women who answer these questions” below the law.

State Sen. Todd Lamb (R), who drafted the legislation and is running for lieutenant governor, said, “We’re not attempting to embarrass anybody, hurt anybody or make anybody’s identities known. That’s not the purpose of the legislation.” He added, “We wish to collect hard data that can be a useful tool in helping prevent future unwanted pregnancies.”

Oklahoma estimates that the state Department of Health would need to spend about $250,000 annually to implement the law. If the law takes effect, the department would have to have the Web site in place by March 1, 2011, and doctors would have to begin submitting questionnaires 30 days later (Drash, CNN, 12/18).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report can be a totally free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

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

~ “Ben Nelson Sends Abortion Back to the States,” Emily Bazelon, Double X’s “XX Factor”: The requirement that consumers will need to write two separate checks under Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb.) antiabortion provision in the Senate well being reform bill (HR 3590) “is really an thought only a diabolical bureaucrat could adore,” but the “other just-for-Nelson concession does not appear so bad to me,” Bazelon writes. Although allowing states to make a decision whether or not to allow insurers to cover abortion “will leave some females in conservative parts with the county who enter the exchanges without having insurance that covers abortions,” it can be “a lot greater than the blanket ban inside the Home version of the bill due to the Stupak amendment,” Bazelon contends. She adds, “At the same time, pro-choice groups have to protest, since Nelson’s opt-out enshrines in law the geographic reality that has eaten away at the national proper designed by Roe v. Wade, namely that abortions are somewhere among tough and impossible to obtain in swaths with the South and West” (Bazelon, “XX Factor,” Double X, 12/21).

~ “Pro-Choice Caucus Meeting With Lawyers and Insurers on Senate Health Care Bill,” Michael O’Brien, The Hill‘s “Blog Briefing Room”: Members with the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus are meeting with attorneys and insurance firms this week as they decide how to proceed in response to abortion provisions within the Senate well being reform bill, O’Brien writes. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair with the caucus, stated, “We’re nonetheless attempting to figure out what this language implies. It seems at the extremely greatest incredibly cumbersome for females, and at worst unconstitutional.” According to O’Brien, “Groups both in support of and opposed to abortion rights have criticized the bill, but the Pro-Choice Caucus has yet to make an official pronouncement on the final bill, the result of which could sway the razor-thin vote tally within the House.” DeGette stated, “We genuinely do wish to have a well being care bill; we do not need to kill the well being care bill more than abortion. But we have said we will not agree to restrictions beyond current law” (O’Brien, “Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/21).

~ “The Nelson ‘Compromise:’ What it is going to Price Us”: Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: By supporting an abortion compromise required to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for the Senate reform bill, Senate Democrats “aided the anti-choice community in achieving one of its main goals: further stigmatizing reproductive and sexual wellness care, such as but not limited to abortion, and creating such care ever-harder for ladies to secure,” Jacobson writes. In accordance with Jacobson, the requirement that all enrollees in wellness plans offering abortion services write two checks for their premiums — one used to cover the bulk of the premium as well as the other employed just for abortion coverage — will have “several negative effects, some very related to or the exact same as the Stupak amendment” towards the House well being care bill (HR 3962). The elimination of a provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill ensuring that each state insurance exchange consists of at least one program that gives abortion coverage and at the least one strategy that does not will mean that “millions fewer girls will have coverage for abortion care than do now,” Jacobson writes. Because it “is more affordable to present a woman who knows she does not need to carry a pregnancy to term” with abortion care than it’s to force her to carry the pregnancy to term, the compromise’s prohibition on insurers from contemplating those price savings when setting premium prices “legislates a ‘market farce,’” based on Jacobson (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 12/20).

~ “Boxer: Pelosi ‘Supportive’ of Senate Abortion Language,” Meredith Shiner, Politico‘s “Live Pulse”: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is “supportive” of the newest compromise more than abortion language within the health reform bill, Shiner reports. “I talked to her, and I said to her I thought this was fair, and she believed it was,” Boxer stated. She added that Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) “thought it was fair. Many of the other ladies don’t like it — do not adore it. Nobody loves it, but it’s fair.” Boxer also urged the Residence to accept the abortion language the Senate has negotiated (Shiner, “Live Pulse,” Politico, 12/21).

~ “The Abortion Deal That Saved Wellness Care (for Now),” David Gibson, Politics Daily‘s “Disputations”: “If the classic definition of a compromise is really a deal that pleases nobody, then the newly minted provision on abortion funding in the well being care deal that won more than Ben Nelson is already a classic,” Gibson writes. Both supporters and opponents of abortion rights have denounced the deal. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stated, “It can be a sad day when women’s health is traded away for one vote.” On the other side of the problem, conservative Catholic activist Deacon Keith Fournier referred to as the deal Nelson’s “Judas moment.” Based on Gibson, the Residence likely won’t pass a bill without having the support of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose amendment to the chamber’s bill would prohibit insurance plans that receive federal subsidies from providing abortion coverage. That implies any modifications towards the Nelson deal “are likely to be within the direction of more instead of less restrictive,” Gibson writes. If liberals cave, they could make inroads with antiabortion-rights groups, “[b]ut it would further alienate pro-choice organizations,” he says. Eventually, they will need to make “the agonizing decision” of no matter whether to torpedo the legislation or tolerate it, Gibson writes (Gibson, “Disputations,” Politics Daily, 12/21).

~ “A D.C. Repro Rights Victory”: Kay Steiger, The American Prospect: The omnibus fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill (HR 3288) signed by President Obama last week lifts a prohibition on Washington, D.C.’s use of local tax revenue for abortion services that Congress has imposed annually since 1988, Steiger, an associate editor for CampusProgress.org, writes. D.C. will now have the ability to put public funds toward Medicaid coverage of abortion for low-income ladies, Steiger notes, allowing it to join “a sparse patchwork of states that permit public funding for abortion.” In accordance with Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, “This is actually some thing to be celebrated from the point of view of women who live in D.C. and are low income.” Steiger writes that if “the D.C. council decides to fund abortion services for low-income women, it’ll alleviate real suffering among its residents.” She cautions that, as with all D.C. laws, Congress retains oversight and could re-impose the ban inside the future. “As numerous pro-choice activists have noticed within the well being care reform debate, ensuring access to abortion — specifically for poor ladies — is a continuous battle, even in a pro-choice city like Washington, D.C.,” Steiger concludes (Steiger, The American Prospect, 12/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the entire Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Tuesday that he and other antiabortion-rights Residence Democrats “will find it very difficult” to support the Senate’s wellness reform legislation (HR 3590), which Stupak stated contains less stringent abortion restrictions than his amendment towards the House bill (HR 3962), The Hill‘s “Blog Briefing Room” reports (O’Brien, “Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). Nonetheless, Stupak also said that he does not think the issue of abortion is “insurmountable,” adding, “I think it can be worked out.” Stupak said he has been in talks with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — whose threats to withhold support for the Senate bill led towards the abortion compromise — and other lawmakers to find common ground on the issue (Werner, AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Stupak’s amendment would prohibit insurance plans that obtain federal subsidies from covering abortion services but says that women who obtain federal subsidies can use private funds to purchase a separate rider policy to cover abortion care (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). The Senate abortion language — which has drawn criticism from both sides — would allow wellness plans to cover abortion care but require all enrollees who purchase such plans to write two separate premium checks for their coverage: one check would cover the bulk of their benefits, while the second check would pay for abortion coverage (AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Stupak has referred to as the Senate language “unacceptable.” In a Fox News interview Tuesday, he indicated that House Democrats might have problems with all the Senate bill “[n]ot just because of the abortion language, but even other language in the Senate bill those of us in the Home are not pleased to see” (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22).

The abortion issue and other differences between the Residence and Senate bills — like a public insurance choice contained within the House bill but excluded from the Senate version — is going to be addressed in a conference committee right after the Senate bill is approved. According to the Los Angeles Times, passage of the Senate bill has been virtually assured since Monday morning, when the legislation cleared the first of three procedural hurdles by garnering the necessary 60 votes. The final Senate vote is scheduled for 8 a.m. Thursday (Hook, Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

The fate of reform may hinge on how each bill’s abortion language is reconciled in the conference committee, the Times reports. It remains unclear whether “sizable faction” of antiabortion-rights Democrats inside the Home will oppose a final bill if abortion provisions do not satisfy their demands (Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

According to “Blog Briefing Room,” the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus is still weighing how to react to Senate’s abortion language (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a leader of the Pro-Choice Caucus, said, “Our initial reaction is we don’t like it.” The caucus has stated it will not support a bill with abortion restrictions beyond current law (AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report can be a totally free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

4.5 (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (2 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts

Sedgwick County, Kan., District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Tuesday that Scott Roeder, the man accused of fatally shooting Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, can not use a “necessity defense” to argue that he believed the murder was justified to save the lives of fetuses, McClatchy /Los Angeles Times reports. Wilbert did say, even so, that he would “leave the door open” for Roeder to present other evidence and arguments that he killed Tiller because he believed he was saving fetuses. In accordance with McClatchy/Times, that might make it possible for Roeder’s attorneys to argue that he committed the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter, which is defined under Kansas law as an “unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” Roeder is charged with first-degree murder (McClatchy /Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

Last month, Roeder told the Associated Press in an interview that he killed Tiller to save the lives of the unborn. He has pleaded not guilty to one charge of first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault for fatally shooting Tiller within the foyer of his Wichita church on May 31 (Women’s Well being Policy Report, 11/11).

Wilbert said Kansas law does not recognize a necessity defense, and even if it did, it could not be used because abortion is legal in Kansas (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23). Allowing someone to use his personal beliefs to justify criminal activity in an attempt to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would “not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy,” Wilbert said, quoting a 1993 Kansas Supreme Court decision (AP/Boston Globe, 12/23). He also stated that he might limit what the defense can say in opening statements and implied that he would be unlikely to allow testimony indicating Roeder was acting in others’ defense because the law requires an “imminent threat.”

Wilbert also denied a motion to move the case out of Sedgwick County. The defense had argued that intense news coverage there would make it impossible for Roeder to obtain a fair trial (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23). In addition, Wilbert denied a motion that would have blocked prosecutors from striking potential jurors based on their beliefs about abortion (AP/Boston Globe, 12/23). Jury selection inside the case will begin Jan. 11 (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

Before Tuesday’s ruling, NPR’s “Morning Edition” examined the history of the attempted use of the necessity defense in cases of violence against abortion clinics and providers. The defense has never been allowed in those cases (Lohr, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 12/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the entire Day-to-day Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley (D) stated in a statement on Sunday that she would “reluctantly” support the Senate well being reform bill (HR 3590) even though it contains new abortion restrictions, a shift from her statements during the primary that she would oppose a bill that went beyond current abortion laws, the Boston Globe reports.

As recently as last week, Coakley said in an interview that she would not vote for a wellness care bill that imposes tighter abortion regulations, calling those restrictions “related to an agenda that others have, many of whom aren’t interested in health care reform.” In her statement Sunday, Coakley expressed regret that the Senate bill omits a public insurance choice and allows states to bar insurance plans that offer abortion coverage from insurance exchanges. “It is actually a reminder that the battle for a public choice and choice goes on,” she said (Viser, Boston Globe, 12/22).

During the Democratic primary campaign, Coakley was the first candidate to announce opposition towards the House’s health reform bill (HR 3962) because of its abortion restrictions. That announcement initially drew scorn from one of her opponents, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), but he later altered his position clarifying that he voted for the House bill using the antiabortion-rights amendment to move the legislation along and that he would oppose a final bill with comparable restrictions (Samuelson, Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). As the Dec. 8 primary approached, Coakley used the issue of abortion as a fundraising tool (CongressDaily, 12/21).

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Coakley is “heavily favored” inside the Jan. 19 race against state Sen. Scott Brown (R) (Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). The Senate could reconvene on the same day as the Massachusetts Senate election, meaning the winner could cast a vote on a final well being care bill (Wangsness, Boston Globe, 12/21). In accordance with the Monitor, Coakley’s stance in favor with the Senate bill could be motivated by an unwillingness to be the sole Democratic senator to oppose the legislation, since all Senate Democrats appear most likely to vote for the chamber’s bill (Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). Brown opposes the Senate bill and supports some restrictions on abortion funding (Boston Globe, 12/22).

Coakley, Brown Spar Over Abortion Problems at Forum

During a recent forum, Brown attacked Coakley for switching her stance in support of the Senate bill, saying that “[d]uring the primary, [she] basically took a principled position” but has “already abandoned that position.” Brown also noted that he supports abortion rights. He stated he favors strong parental rights and opposes abortion late in pregnancy, which he stated Coakley supports — prompting Coakley to say that Brown misstated her position on the issue. Coakley said that she supports late abortion in cases in which a woman’s wellness or life is in jeopardy. The forum also featured libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy, who is not related to former Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sen. Kennedy’s death in August left the Senate seat vacant. Joseph Kennedy said he opposes the well being care bill but supports abortion rights (LeBlanc, AP/Boston Globe, 12/22).

Globe Editorial Praises Coakley Position

While Coakley’s “position on well being care legislation and abortion rights has not been a model of consistency,” she deserves praise for ultimately supporting the Senate bill, a Globe editorial states. Coakley “should be commended for making this commitment now, rather than either refusing to support the bill or keeping everyone guessing until the Jan. 19 election,” the editorial says. The editorial notes that despite the abortion restrictions, the bill provides insurance for millions of girls and prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on gender (Boston Globe, 12/22).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the entire Day-to-day Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a totally free service with the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Abortion-rights groups are using Republican Stephen Hunt’s association with a church-affiliated crisis pregnancy center in their campaign against his bid for a Virginia state Senate seat, the Washington Post reports. In a special election set for Jan. 12, Hunt, a former Fairfax County school board member, faces state Del. Dave Marsden, a first-term Democrat. The race is drawing attention because it could tilt the balance of power in the Virginia Senate.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said that fliers collected in May from Assist Pregnancy Center in Annandale, Va., stated that condoms fail one-third of the time and that abortions are the “most preventable cause of breast cancer.” Hunt served as volunteer president of the pregnancy center’s board of directors from 2001 to 2006. The 20-year-old center provides no-cost parenting classes and childbirth counseling.

The fliers and brochures distributed by the center show that much of its medical information is “dangerously incorrect,” NARAL spokesperson Emily Polak said. The claim about condoms is based on a 22-year-old study of 10 couples, and mainstream health organizations say there is no association between breast cancer and abortion. Although abortion-rights advocates and opponents agree that the information within the fliers is outdated and incorrect, abortion-rights groups say the statements are indicative with the myths perpetuated by CPCs, the Post reports.

Hunt stated the new criticism is part of a “highly politicized effort” to paint him as a right-wing ideologue, much the same way Democrats highlighted the socially conservative positions of Virginia Gov.-elect Robert McDonnell (R) in the course of his campaign this year. “This is the pro-choice groups going more than the top,” Hunt said, adding that there are documented links between breast cancer and abortion.

Assist Executive Director Jane Fuller said the fliers have been removed. A spokesperson for Care Net, which offers guidance to organizations like Assist, stated that the center has come under new leadership since the pamphlets were distributed and that volunteers are reviewing Assist’s literature (Kravitz, Washington Post, 12/21).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Three newspapers recently published an opinion piece and editorials responding to a compromise reached between Senate leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that would allow individual states to decide whether to bar insurance plans from offering abortion coverage if they participate within the state exchanges. The agreement also would require consumers receiving federal subsidies for insurance coverage who purchase plans covering abortion to write two separate premium checks — one check to cover the bulk of their plan along with the second check to cover the price of abortion services. Summaries with the opinion piece and editorials appear below.

~ Derrick Jackson, Boston Globe: “Abortion is the latest example of how a male majority on Capitol Hill continues to control ladies, directly or indirectly,” Jackson writes, adding that “studies clearly indicate that if girls had an equal say in reform, it would take a very different shape.” According to Jackson, “Research shows that women, particularly mothers, continue to pay silent social and economic penalties in a nation that has some of the worst parental leave policies with the industrialized world,” adding that while millions of girls will gain insurance under wellness reform, “they will continue to struggle because with the men of Congress, who listen a lot more towards the insurance companies than mothers.” The column concludes, “Health reform may give more coverage than ever,” but “it will also take away from ladies a lot more rights than ever” (Boston Globe, 12/22).

~ Los Angeles Times: The Nelson provision would “open a new front inside the legislative fight over abortion, allowing states to pass laws barring insurers from including abortion coverage in policies for individuals and small businesses,” in accordance with a Times editorial. This could result in “a significant setback for abortion rights in states where social conservatives dominate the legislature,” the editorial says. It “doesn’t make much sense” to let “states ban abortion coverage just for females not fortunate enough to work for an employer who provides it,” the editorial continues (Los Angeles Times, 12/22).

~ Washington Times: A Times editorial claims that Nelson “sold his soul to give government the power to force millions of taxpayers to pay for a procedure they view to be murder.” It says that he backed down from his pledge not to vote for “government wellness care if it paid for abortion.” Based on the editorial, supporters of abortion rights “don’t respect that those who oppose abortion want to be free to choose what their money should be used to support” (Washington Times, 12/22).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the entire Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report is actually a totally free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

1 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

House Democrats on both sides of the abortion-rights debate have issued warnings of possible defections on the final wellness reform bill because of disputes about abortion language within the legislation, CQ Today reports. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is leading antiabortion-rights efforts in the House, said he expects 10 to 12 other Democrats to vote against final well being reform legislation if the Senate bill’s (HR 3590) language regarding abortion coverage under federally subsidized insurance plans is included. Meanwhile, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, stated 42 Home members have pledged to vote against any legislation that “goes against current law.”

The Residence bill (HR 3962) contains an amendment by Stupak that bans insurance plans participating in the exchange that obtain federal funds from providing abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life with the woman. The Stupak amendment also would prohibit insurance plans within the exchange from discriminating against wellness care providers or facilities that refuse to provide abortion services (Stern, CQ Today, 12/31/09). A provision in the Senate bill negotiated by Democratic leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) makes clear that individual states can decide whether to bar insurance plans participating in the exchange in their state from providing abortion coverage. In addition, consumers receiving federal subsidies for insurance coverage who purchase plans covering abortion would be required to write two separate premium checks — one check to cover the bulk of their plan and also the second check to cover the price of abortion services (Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 12/22/09).

Neither Stupak nor DeGette would release the names of House Democrats who have threatened to vote against final legislation because of abortion coverage. DeGette said 42 abortion-rights advocates in the House have signed a letter pledging to vote against any bill that goes further than current federal law. “We really do want to have a bill, but we really are not going to compromise on something that goes beyond current law,” DeGette stated, adding, “That’s what we’re struggling with right now — to see exactly what the (Senate) language does and see if there are improvements to that language that can be made.”

Stupak said that he and his allies are “disappointed and disillusioned” with the Senate bill’s abortion language. In accordance with CQ Today, the 41 Democrats who voted to incorporate Stupak’s amendment in the final Home bill are the “most likely” to vote against a final bill over abortion concerns. The group of 41 includes five Residence committee chairs who voted for both Stupak’s amendment along with the House bill, as well as three other chairs that voted for the amendment but against the final bill.

CQ Today reports that even if the final language on abortion coverage leads to defections among the 219 Democrats who supported the Residence bill, House Democratic leaders may be able to pick up as many as 38 votes from caucus members who voted against the chamber’s final bill because they prefer the Senate’s language on various issues.

Lawmakers Cautiously Weighing Nelson Language

Negotiators from both chambers are operating to find a compromise on the abortion issue in the merged wellness reform legislation (CQ Today, 12/31/09). Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) stated that the “goal now is to reaffirm, in a conference setting, that we’re maintaining a status quo and not eroding a woman’s choice.” She added that she would “love to see [the final bill] reflect the language within the beginning, overturning Stupak, which they did within the Senate.”

According to Newsweek, “there is fissure between pro-choice leaders inside and outside of government” that is leading abortion-rights supporters to “tak[e] a nuanced stance” on the Senate’s language. While the Stupak amendment was met with “common outrage” by both abortion-rights groups and supporters in Congress, some lawmakers reacted towards the Nelson amendment together with the attitude of “we don’t love it, we don’t even like it, but if this is what it takes to move forward with health care reform, we will live with it,” Newsweek reports.

Alex Glass — communications director for Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who was involved inside the discussions — said the Nelson amendment “stopped Stupak and kept health reform moving forward without rolling back women’s health care options.” Although some abortion-rights groups have stated they oppose the Senate bill because of the Nelson language, others “admit to being stuck in an incredibly hard place” because they also oppose the Residence language, Newsweek reports (Kliff, Newsweek, 12/23/09).

Other Issues Complicate Reconciliation

While abortion coverage is one of the largest issues inside the well being reform debate, Stupak said that there are “a number of concerns about other provisions that will have to be addressed too” (CQ Today, 12/31/09). One such issue is actually a provision inside the Senate bill that would provide an estimated $100 million in Medicaid funding to Nebraska, the AP/Boston Globe reports. Nebraska is the only state included within the deal, which — along with all the abortion language — was used to secure Nelson’s vote for the Senate bill.

However, 13 Republican state attorneys general are threatening legal action if the provision remains in health reform legislation, the AP/Globe reports. In a Dec. 30 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the attorneys general said they believe the provision to be “constitutionally flawed.” The letter was signed by the attorneys general from Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state (Kinnard, AP/Boston Globe, 12/31/09).

In response towards the letter’s threats, Nelson referred to as South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster (R), the leader of the group, and urged him to “call off the dogs” and forgo legal action, Politico reports. A copy of a memo by McMaster’s chief of staff to other Republican attorneys general stated that Nelson denied involvement using the Medicaid deal and that other states would be extended the same exemption under the final merged bill (Isenstadt, Politico, 1/1).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

President Obama will need to re-nominate Dawn Johnsen as his choice for the head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel following the Senate failed to take action on her nomination ahead of adjourning on Christmas Eve, CQ Today reports. Some conservatives have opposed Johnsen’s nomination over her support for abortion rights and her criticism of counterterrorism policies in place under President George W. Bush.

Johnsen’s nomination was one of seven that the Senate let lapse. Obama would need to resubmit the nominations if he still desires the Senate to confirm them. Two of the nominees — Louis Butler and Edward Chen — were choices for U.S. district court judgeships.

The Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2009 voted 11-7 to approve Johnsen’s nomination. In May, it became clear that Democrats did not have the support to end debate on Johnsen’s nomination when Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) vowed to vote against her (Scholtes, CQ Today, 12/28/09). Johnsen represented NARAL Pro-Choice America 20 years ago and filed a brief on behalf of the group just before the Supreme Court (Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/26/09).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the whole Every day Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report is really a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

1 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

The following summarizes a recent editorial and three opinion pieces addressing the issue of abortion coverage in well being reform legislation.

Editorial

The “basic framework” with the House (HR 3962) and Senate (HR 3590) bills “is the same,” but there are many “major differences,” such as on the issue of abortion coverage, a New York Times editorial states. According to the editorial, the options are a “choice of two evils” because the House bill “would prohibit any private insurance plan that accepts a single subsidized enrollee from covering abortion,” which would “effectively ban abortion coverage within the exchanges.” The Senate bill, meanwhile, “would set up an extremely cumbersome procedure in which everyone buying an insurance plan that covers abortions on the exchanges (even men and post-menopausal women) would have to send two monthly checks towards the insurance company, one covering most of the premium and a second tiny amount covering the estimated expense of abortion services that might be provided to some enrollees.” This provision “would discourage insurers from offering abortion coverage,” the editorial says, adding, “The Senate would also let states ban abortion coverage” (New York Times, 12/27/09).

Opinion Pieces

~ Joanna Weiss, Boston Globe: “This is really a critical moment for abortion-rights advocates, and not just because we’ve seen abortion used as a bargaining chip,” Globe columnist Weiss writes, adding, “New generations of Americans, removed from the battles that preceded Roe v. Wade, view the debate less as a matter of absolutes than as an issue of gut-wrenching complexity.” Weiss writes that “in the political arena, the battle more than abortion rights is still waged by the extremes, two irreconcilable sides that insist that ceding any ground is tantamount to ceding all of it.” While abortion-rights opponents “often ignore the fact that pregnancy is hard and risky and emotional, … abortion-rights advocacy can sometimes be equally blind, lambasting anyone who raises shades of gray,” she says. Based on Weiss, the “all-or-nothing pro-choice argument was needed at a time when contraceptives were less readily available, when ladies had far fewer choices about their fertility and their lives,” but “we are now in a moment when acknowledging the moral complexity of abortion doesn’t have to diminish one’s commitment to choice — and could actually even strengthen it.” She concludes, “Perhaps the wellness care bill isn’t a terrible moment for women’s rights, but a great one, a point when both sides of the abortion debate can move past the polarized rhetoric and start working toward a goal that most people would share: making abortion safe, legal, and very, very rare” (Weiss, Boston Globe, 12/26/09).

~ Terry O’Neill, Boston Globe: In a letter towards the editor of the Globe, National Organization for Ladies President O’Neill writes that Weiss’ opinion piece “is completely off base.” She adds that the word “[d]etente may make sense between sovereign nations, but it’s unreasonable to apply it to discussions about women’s bodies.” Abortion can be a “medical procedure that must not be undermined or denied by legislators,” O’Neill writes. As with decisions regarding organ donation and other medical procedures, abortion should be a “choice left to individuals,” she continues. O’Neill concludes, “If you really want to contemplate moral complexity, forget abortion. Consider rather why it is that men’s and women’s bodies are valued so differently in our society” (O’Neill, Boston Globe, 1/2).

~ William Saletan, Slate: The notion that abortion is “different from other issues caught up in the health care debate” because it is “a question of ultimate values” is “nonsense,” according to Slate columnist Saletan. He writes, “The differences among the competing proposals are almost entirely technical.” In accordance with Saletan, the debate more than abortion coverage inside the health reform bills “has narrowed to how we treat the mixture of public subsidies with private premiums in federally supervised insurance exchanges.” Saletan argues that the proposals “all segregate abortion money” from public funds, the only difference being “who does the segregating and when it takes place.” He continues, “Each version has pros, cons and complications,” but “the pros, cons, and complications are technical” and “can be worked out.” He suggests, “Let’s cut a deal and move on,” concluding, “The complications are worth raising. But they aren’t worth killing the bill” (Saletan, Slate, 12/23/09).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the entire Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a totally free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.