Healthcare Prof:

Three ladies on Wednesday filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights claiming that Ireland is violating the human rights of pregnant girls by forcing them to travel abroad to have abortions, as well as by denying them adequate care preceding and following the procedure, the AP/Boston Globe reports. A verdict is expected in 2010.

According to the AP/Globe, Ireland’s health system is one of only a few in Europe that prohibits abortions, causing more than 7,000 females to travel to other countries annually to have the procedure. If the girls win the lawsuit, the country could be forced to change its policies.

Paul Gallagher, attorney general for the Irish government, said that he and constitutional lawyers reject the women’s central claim that they cannot receive proper medical care before and after having abortions abroad. He also said that Ireland’s abortion ban reflects “profound moral values deeply embedded in Irish society.”

Gallagher told the European court judges that the females really should have sued the Irish government first and exhausted legal options before pursuing the human rights court. The women’s lawyers, who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association, said that making a case in Irish court would have been costly and futile, adding that it could have forced the girls to surrender their anonymity (Pogatchnik, AP/Boston Globe, 12/10).

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

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The City Council in Berkeley, Calif., recently mailed coat hangers and protest letters to 20 members with the U.S. House who voted for an antiabortion rights amendment to the chamber’s wellness care reform bill (HR 3962) but have a history of supporting abortion rights, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), would ban abortion coverage in public and private health insurance plans that receive federal subsidies (Jones, San Francisco Chronicle, 12/10). Based on council member Susan Wengraf, a co-sponsor with the measure that authorized Wednesday’s mailings, the “coat hanger represents the time when ladies had to have abortions in back alleys and tried to self-abort.” She added, “I don’t want my granddaughter to go through what my grandmothers had to.” Kriss Worthington, another council member and co-sponsor of the mailings, said his support for the move was prompted by outrage among his constituents. He said that he opted not to send the mailings to all representatives who oppose abortion rights because “nothing the city of Berkeley says to them will make any difference.”

The letter accompanying the hangers says, “We know that you have been supportive of a woman’s appropriate to choose throughout your legislative career, we implore you to continue.” It also calls on the representatives to reconsider their stance on the amendment. “We have never sent a coat hanger to anyone before. We are taking this unusual but important step to emphasize the importance of this message,” the letter also reads (Oakley, Contra Costa Times, 12/9). The City Council approved the mailings by a vote of 8-1 (AP/Miami Herald, 12/9). Council member Gordon Wozniak, who was the lone dissenter, said, “I think the coat hanger is an inappropriate symbol, and it could backfire on us.” Wengraf said that she initially felt mailing the hangers would be “too extreme” but she ultimately changed her mind (Contra Costa Times, 12/9).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report is really 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:

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

~ “Pregnant, in Prison and Denied Care,” Rachel Roth, The Nation: In 2009, “incarcerated girls and their allies have achieved a remarkable string of victories against inhumane treatment, … send[ing] a strong signal towards the rest with the country to stop subjecting women to [the] dangerous and degrading practice” of shackling pregnant prisoners during childbirth, Roth writes. Even so, the “pain and humiliation they endure” during childbirth “likely caps months of difficulty from being pregnant behind bars, months without adequate prenatal care or nutrition, or even basics like a bed to sleep on or clothes to accommodate their changing shape,” Roth continues, adding that the “denial of appropriate care to pregnant ladies is part and parcel of the general state of medical neglect in prisons” in the U.S. She writes, “Until elected officials mandate” reporting of pregnancy outcomes in prisons, “we will have to rely on the efforts of imprisoned girls, journalists, human rights investigators, researchers, lawyers and advocates to document the reality of life for pregnant girls inside prison walls” (Roth, The Nation, 12/10).

~ “Deconstructing Harry,” Robert Costa, National Review: In an entry examining 10 points “to watch within the Senate well being care debate,” Costa writes that you can find several questions surrounding abortion coverage and the outcome of the final vote on the bill, including whether Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will “play hardball and push for his amendment’s language to be included inside the bill via” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) manager’s amendment. Costa writes that his “prediction” is that “Nelson talks about walking away, only to be cajoled back” by Reid, who “knows how to sweeten pots” (Costa, National Review, 12/10).

~ “Does Ireland’s Abortion Law Violate Human Rights?” Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily: The outcome of a “potentially landmark” case before the European Court of Human Rights “may very well end up changing abortion law in Ireland, … may also affect abortion law in other parts of Europe” and “might well impinge on American jurisprudence domestically,” Lloyd writes. The case challenges abortion laws in Ireland, a country that Lloyd says “has 1 with the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.” Ireland outlawed abortion in 1861, and subsequent laws allow life sentences for ladies who undergo the process, as well as maintain that fetuses have explicit rights beginning at contraception, according to Lloyd. The lawsuit alleges that Irish laws violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees rights to life and privacy, and also prohibits torture and discrimination. “If the court rules in favor with the three females, this would establish a new minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion would be entitled under the European Convention,” Lloyd writes, adding that the ruling could be binding to all member states, including nations with very strict abortion laws (Lloyd, Politics Daily, 12/10).

~ “Stupak’s NYT Op-Ed: Congresswoman Capps Responds,” Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), RH Reality Check: Capps counters assertions made by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in a New York Times opinion piece on Dec. 9. Stupak inside the opinion piece examines whether an amendment he sponsored with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that restricts access to abortion services is consistent with current law and public opinion. The Stupak-Pitts amendment “goes well beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde amendment its proponents claim,” Capps writes, adding that an amendment she sponsored would have barred federal funding for abortions but allowed plans offered in proposed insurance exchanges to fund abortions using private money from premiums. Allowing insurers to segregate federal and private funding would be consistent with current laws that permit churches and military contractors to do the same, Capps writes. Capps also cites recent polls showing that 54% of U.S. residents oppose reform plans that would bar private insurers from covering abortion and that 52% of voters “support the ‘Capps compromise’” (Capps, RH Reality Check, 12/10).

~ “Nelson Amendment Fails, but More Obstacles Remain for Pro-Choicers,” Jessica Grose, Double X’s “XX Factor”: “On the surface,” the defeat of an amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill (HR 3590) sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that mirrors language within the Stupak amendment “seems like a victory for pro-choice forces within the Senate,” Grose writes. Nonetheless, she adds that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated that “the fight is not over.” To placate Nelson, who has said he would filibuster the bill if his language is not adopted by the Senate, Reid has indicated that he would consider including different language that restricts abortion rights. This “is not the only disappointing news for women’s health” because neither the Senate bill nor the House (HR 3962) bill requires coverage of all components of a typical gynecological “well visit,” according to Grose. She concludes, “If essential care isn’t part of a health insurance reform, getting the bill passed is really a pyrrhic victory for girls at best” (Grose, “XX Factor,” Double X, 12/9).

~ “Five Unresolved Questions on Abortion in Wellness Care Debate,” Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report’s “God & Country”: Gilgoff addresses five lingering questions concerning the progress of health reform. First, Gilgoff questions no matter whether a Democratic senator who opposes abortion rights — Sens. Robert Casey (Pa.) or Ben Nelson (Neb.) — will “withhold a cloture vote on the Senate health care bill because it lacks a strict ban on federal dollars for abortions.” Next, he wonders regardless of whether the House would approve a bill that lacks “a sweeping Stupak-Pitts ban on federal dollars available to health care plans that offer abortion coverage.” Third, Gilgoff considers no matter whether the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has enough power to prevent passage of a reform bill that omits the Stupak-Pitts language. Fourth, Gilgoff asks whether or not “segregating federal money from personal premiums in funding abortion coverage [constitutes] a ban on federally funded abortion” in a government-managed insurance plan. Finally, he wonders no matter whether a compromise will emerge that goes beyond the Capps plan’s segregation of private and federal funding for abortion services but “stops short of preventing government-subsidized plans from covering the procedure” (Gilgoff, “God & Country,” U.S. News & World Report, 12/9).

~ “Coakley Wins, Nelson Loses: A Victory for Ladies,” Ellen Malcolm, Politics Daily: Girls “certainly understand” the concept of “trying to change the world for the greater, periodically celebrating small victories, when all of the sudden a convergence of events creates huge and significant change,” Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, writes. For example, Dec. 8 marked “a convergence of events [that] resulted in tremendous victories for girls,” including Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley winning the U.S. Senate Democratic primary and the defeat of Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb.) amendment, which would have banned federally subsidized insurance plans from covering abortion services. Malcolm adds, “One victory shows females know how to win. 1 victory shows why women need to win.” The events on Dec. 8 make “it clear that women see the world differently than men” and that their “perspectives need to be represented in our representative democracy,” Malcolm writes, adding, “When we succeed in electing more women” like Coakley, abortion-rights opponents “won’t have the power to define, create or expand the ‘status quo’ for women” (Malcolm, Politics Daily, 12/11).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a totally 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)

Groups supporting and opposing abortion rights in New York state are facing off inside the state capital over proposed legislation (S 04897, A 02034) that would designate the death of a fetus a crime during a homicide of the pregnant woman, the New York Daily News reports. Under the proposed legislation, the death of a fetus of at least 24 weeks’ gestation would be considered a homicide.

Abortion-rights supporters believe that the legislation could make it easier to establish “fetal rights,” granting a fetus the same legal status as the pregnant woman, the Daily News reports. Samantha Levine, a spokesperson for the New York chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, “We think a greater approach would be to increase penalties for individuals who assault or injure a pregnant woman.”

Antiabortion-rights advocates say that the legislation’s language avoids any interference using the constitutional correct to abortion, adding that the bill prohibits prosecutors from charging abortion providers with murder (Zambito, New York Daily News, 12/9).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be 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 Well being Policy Report is really a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Health-Care Assist From The Rookies The Washington Post
The headlines went to a possible compromise on the contentious issue of the public option, but the greater victory may lie in less-publicized Senate action that might actually cut the costs of our impossibly expensive health-care system. This week, the outlines of such a change emerged in a package of amendments proposed by 11 freshman Democratic senators — who have an abundance of common sense that more than compensates for their lack of seniority and renown (David S. Broder, 12/11).

My Abortion Anguish Baltimore Sun
As I listen to the debate regarding abortion coverage within the proposed health care system, I can’t aid but ask: What about circumstances like mine? How can families — especially federal employees — facing such a terrible prognosis be omitted from insurance coverage for abortion? The majority of private health insurance plans cover abortion; nevertheless, the Federal Employees Well being Benefits Program prohibits coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. This policy forces federal employees and their dependents in my situation to pay out of pocket for abortion care (Dana Weinstein, 12/11).

It’s The Wellness Care Payment System, Stupid! The Salt Lake Tribune
Most Americans agree that U.S. health care costs are breaking our collective bank. What may be less well known is how current payment mechanisms strongly encourage overuse of health care services. Further, cost-conscious states like Utah are effectively underwriting wasteful practices of high well being cost regions such as New York City and Los Angeles (Brian Jackson, 12/11).

Pharmacy Lobby Limits Access To Lifesaving Drugs Des Moines Register
Despite costing the same or less to make, biologics would receive 12 years of data exclusivity, a market monopoly distinct from the patents they already have, whereas conventional drugs receive three or five years of additional protection. Notably, earlier this year the Federal Trade Commission recommended zero years of data exclusivity for biologics (Jim Curry, 12/11).

Worse Than the Public Option The Wall Street Journal
It’s hard to imagine a much better illustration with the panic and recklessness stringing ObamaCare along within the Senate than the putative deal that Harry Reid announced this week. The Majority Leader is claiming that a Medicare “buy-in” for people from ages 55 to 64 has overcome the liberal-moderate impasse over the “public option.” But if anything, this gambit is an even faster road to government-run health care (12/11).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. It is possible to view the whole Kaiser Everyday Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

? Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Over the weekend, Senate Democrats continued efforts to reach an agreement on abortion coverage under the chamber’s health care reform bill after Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he would not support the measure without additional restrictions, the New York Times‘ “Prescriptions” reports. The Senate recently rejected an amendment proposed by Nelson and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have prohibited any federally subsidized insurance plan from offering abortion coverage. A similar amendment is included inside the House wellness reform bill (HR 3962) (Herszenhorn, “Prescriptions,” New York Times, 12/14). According to the AP/NPR, Nelson is 1 with the 60 votes needed to block a GOP filibuster within the Senate and pass the final bill (Kellman, AP/NPR, 12/14).

Democratic leaders aim to draft language that will satisfy antiabortion-rights senators who want restrictions similar to those in the House bill, without alienating abortion-rights supporters who say they will oppose any additional restrictions, the Times reports (“Prescriptions,” New York Times, 12/14). The Washington Post reports that one alternative proposal, by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), would require the HHS secretary to use private contractors to segregate federal subsidies from private money used to pay for abortion coverage covered under a public plan option.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a supporter of abortion rights, said she would back a compromise that creates “a firewall” between federal subsidies and private premiums for abortion services, although she did not specifically address Ellsworth’s proposal. Nelson has not said if the Ellsworth language would be enough to get his support for the final bill (Kane, Washington Post, 12/12).

In a Sunday interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Nelson said he recently told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he “can’t support the bill with all the abortion language that’s there.” Although his amendment failed inside the Senate, Nelson said, “I do know that you’ll find some who are right now trying to find language that might be compatible together with the language inside the House (bill).” However, that is “a tall order for people,” he said, adding, “I’m not prescribing ahead what they may be able to do” (UPI, 12/13).

Threats From Other Sens. Complicate Prospects

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), also appearing on “Face the Nation,” said he intends to vote against the Senate well being reform bill in its current form, despite previous statements that he was in support with the bill, the New York Times reports. Lieberman said he told Reid to remove a provision that would allow Medicare access to people ages 55 through 64 through a so-called “buy-in” program and allow the government to create a public insurance plan if the private plans don’t achieve certain goals (Pear/Herszenhorn, New York Times, 12/14). Nelson also has expressed reservations concerning the Medicare proposal, though unlike Lieberman, Nelson participated in talks last week to develop the compromise.

Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said that her support for the Senate bill was contingent on its cost and that she “absolutely” would vote against the bill if it raised well being care costs overall, the AP/Los Angeles Times reports. McCaskill said the Senate is “on hold” until the latest version of the bill receives its score from the Congressional Budget Office, which is expected this week (AP/Los Angeles Times, 12/14).

According to Roll Call, the White House indicated on Sunday that is it willing to accept a bill that is not scored as reducing wellness spending costs. White House Economic Council Director Larry Summers on ABC’s “This Week” said that the White House believes the Senate bill will ultimately lower costs (Koffler, Roll Call, 12/13).

Politico Examines Breast Cancer Screening Debate

The recent debate over new breast cancer screening recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force “has exploded on the political scene” and appears likely to “shap[e] the 2010 electoral landscape” as lawmakers use well being reform issues to court female voters, Politico reports. A Gallup survey conducted shortly after the release of the recommendations found that 76% of ladies said they disagreed using the new guidelines, while 85% said they had become aware of them. The focus on the recommendations — which say most females under age 50 don’t require annual mammograms — “signals a willingness on behalf of both parties to play political hardball on an issue typically outside the bounds of the campaign arena,” Politico reports (Isenstadt, Politico, 12/13).

Washington Times Opinion Pieces Examines Provision for ‘Relationship Education’

A provision in the Senate health reform bill that “would funnel millions of dollars to ‘relationship education’” is a “small but revolutionary provision that, if enacted, could change the national conversation on teens and sex,” Washington Times columnist Cheryl Wetzstein writes. The provision would educate teenagers on “relationship skills” and “would elevate the focus of sex education about two feet, from below the belt to the essential sex organ, i.e., the brain,” she writes. Wetzstein adds that such education “not only teaches kids what to go for, but also how to avoid dangerous situations,” such as sexual abuse and domestic violence (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 12/13).

Reprinted with type 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 e-mail delivery here. The Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a totally free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The Senate on Sunday approved a $446.8 billion omnibus spending bill (HR 3288) that combines six with the seven remaining fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills, CQ Today reports.

The omnibus bill includes the Financial Services (HR 3170), Commerce-Justice-Science (HR 2847), Labor-HHS-Education (HR 3293), Military Construction-Veterans Affairs (HR 3082), State-Foreign Operations (HR 3081) and Transportation-HUD (HR 3288) appropriations bills (Vadala/Nylen, CQ Today, 12/13). Congressional leaders are holding the final appropriations bill for the Department of Defense (HR 3326) until next week to determine what other legislation might be added to it (Vadala/Nylen, CQ Today, 12/13).

The bill passed by a vote of 57-35, largely along party lines. Three Democrats — Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) — aligned with Republicans and voted against the bill (Brady, Roll Call, 12/13). The House passed the spending package last week.

Labor-HHS-Education, the largest with the FY 2010 appropriations bills, would provide a total of $730.6 billion, which is 9% more than FY 2009 levels and 0.3% above President Obama’s request (Stern, CQ Today, 12/14). The bill would continue existing federal restrictions on abortion (CQ Today, 12/13). The package includes $603.7 billion for HHS, much of which is mandatory spending for programs like Medicaid and Medicare (CQ Today, 12/14).

The bill also would remove restrictions on Washington, D.C.’s use of locally derived tax revenue to fund abortion services for low-income females, as well as ease restrictions on D.C.’s use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs designed to curb the spread of HIV among injection drug users. The bill would allow federal funding for such programs except in locations “that public well being or law enforcement agencies determine to be inappropriate.”

In addition, the bill calls for an increase in foreign aid spending by 10% to 15%. A provision that would have permanently repealed the “global gag rule” was removed during House negotiations after antiabortion-rights lawmakers threatened to block the bill’s passage. The rule bans U.S. foreign aid from going to organizations that offer abortion services and information, even if they use their own funds for such services (Women’s Well being Policy Report, 12/11).

Bill Provides ‘Long-Sought Autonomy’ for D.C., Washington Post Editorial States

The spending bill is “a great boon for the District of Columbia” because “of the long-sought autonomy it gives the city to set policy and use its own money without congressional interference for abortion, medical marijuana and needle-exchange programs,” a Washington Post editorial states. In accordance with the editorial, “No other jurisdiction inside the country must contend with the obstruction that residents of the district face from Capitol Hill.” The editorial continues that abortion, medical marijuana and needle-exchange programs “are no doubt controversial” but that “the duly elected representatives of the people with the district … made the decision to support them.” The editorial states, “That they are close to becoming law gives us hope that other victories are in the offing,” such as “budget and governance autonomy” (Washington Post, 12/13).

NPR Examines Hyde Amendment

NPR’s “Morning Edition” on Monday examined the evolution of the Hyde Amendment, which is annually attached to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to restrict federal funding of abortion. “Morning Edition” reports that even though the amendment was first approved in 1976, it did not take effect until 1980, after the Supreme Court ruled on its constitutionality. Over the years, Hyde-type provisions have been added to other annual spending bills to restrict abortion in wellness plans for federal employees, females in federal prisons, military personnel, Peace Corps volunteers and international family planning programs that use non-U.S. money to advocate for abortion rights (Rovner, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 12/14).

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

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) recent vote to reject an amendment to the Senate wellness reform bill that would have prohibited coverage of abortion services in any well being plan insuring people who receive federal subsidies has brought renewed attention to an issue that has haunted her political career, the AP/Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. Landrieu, one of the few Louisiana politicians who support abortion rights, said that she voted against the amendment because she believed it would have removed legal abortion coverage from private plans, thus violating the pledge that people who like their current well being insurance coverage would be able to keep it under reform.

In a NARAL Pro-Choice America analysis of 2008 abortion-related votes, Landrieu had a 20% rating, down from 65% in 2007. Donna Crane, NARAL’s policy director, said, “We don’t always agree, but we find her to be really thoughtful.” During Landrieu’s 1996 senatorial campaign, a retired Catholic bishop said that voting for her would be a sin. During her re-election campaign in 2002, Landrieu’s Republican opponent, Suzanne Haik Terrell, said, “As a practicing Catholic, I did not leave my faith, as did Mary Landrieu.”

Landrieu was condemned for her vote on the amendment by the state Republican Party and antiabortion-rights groups. Tony Perkins, president with the Family Research Council and a former Republican state representative, said, “Forcing the American people to pay for elective abortions is really a line that no Louisiana senator has ever crossed.” In response to Landrieu’s vote, New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond wrote in a statement, “We agree on many issues, but definitely do not agree on the issue of abortion,” adding, “I continue to be in prayerful, open dialogue with Sen. Landrieu, and I continue to pray that the sanctity of life will be protected always” (McGill, AP/Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12/10).

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

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

In a Baltimore Sun opinion piece, Dana Weinstein describes her experience learning that her seven-and-one-half-month-old fetus had an irreparable brain deformity. “[N]o amount of surgery or physical therapy could change this horrific diagnosis,” Weinstein writes, adding that even if the fetus survived birth, it would suffer from ongoing seizures and lack the ability to suck, swallow, feed, walk, talk or know its environment. Weinstein says that she and her husband “would have needed a resuscitation order in place before the birth, as our child would have been incapable of living without significant medical assistance.”

Weinstein writes that she and her husband concluded they “did not want to bring a child into this world who would only be here in a vegetative state” and would “depend solely on feeding tubes and machines” to survive. She adds that they therefore “did the most loving, humane act a parent could do — put an end to our baby’s suffering.” Because of the later stage of her pregnancy, Weinstein was unable to obtain an abortion in her home state of Maryland, so she and her husband traveled to Colorado to “one of a handful of facilities in the U.S. that provide later-abortion care,” she writes. Weinstein’s upfront medical expenses totaled $17,500, not including the cost of travel, and she is still waiting to learn no matter whether her insurer will reimburse her costs.

“As I listen to the debate regarding abortion coverage in the proposed well being care system, I can’t support but ask: What about circumstances like mine?” Weinstein writes. She adds that she also wonders how other families — particularly those with insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which prohibits abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or danger towards the woman’s life — might be denied coverage for the process. “To be forced to carry to term because of lack of financial coverage is beyond cruel,” she writes.

“To say I am angered by those who are trying to prevent abortion coverage in the health care system is an understatement,” Weinstein writes, adding that she supports the efforts of Maryland’s two Democratic senators, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, “who are fighting to ensure girls like me have access towards the reproductive wellness care we need.” Weinstein concludes that she chose to write the opinion piece for females “who are too fearful or made to really feel ashamed to put a face on abortion” and “for all the ladies who, like me just five months ago, never imagined they would need the support of an abortion” (Weinstein, Baltimore Sun, 12/11).

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 Day-to-day Women’s Well being Policy Report is actually a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

“The heated Capitol Hill debate over well being care coverage for mammograms has exploded onto the political scene, shaping the 2010 electoral landscape and recalibrating the battle for a crucial constituency: the women’s vote,” Politico reports. “With women’s wellness issues increasingly at the forefront with the well being care debate, pols have turned breast cancer into a potent campaign weapon. The volume inside the war has ramped up in recent weeks after a government task force released findings – widely criticized by women’s groups – recommending that it was unnecessary” for some females under age 50 to get screened for breast cancer.

Republicans and Democrats have often clashed over abortion in the past, but “the heated political rhetoric surrounding mammograms, experts say, is beyond the norm” and “signals a willingness on behalf of both parties to play political hardball on an issue typically outside the bounds of the campaign arena” (Isenstadt, 12/13).

NPR: “Abortion remains 1 with the key unresolved issues inside the ongoing wellness overhaul debate. Those on both sides of the abortion debate say what they want inside the wellness bill is to retain the status quo. And the status quo they point to may be the Hyde amendment, the ban on federal funding of abortion first passed in 1976.” The story explains how abortion language has evolved over the decades (Rovner, 12/14).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with type permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. It is possible to view the entire Kaiser Everyday Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for e-mail delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

? Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.