Obama won’t protect repro rights in health reform

As you may have noticed, right now there’s some major political wrangling going on over health reform. Not only has the public option been jettisoned, but news broke today that anti-choice Democrats are really upset
at the prospect of low- and moderate-income women receiving federal subsidies to access insurance plans that cover abortion.

Rather than declare his support reproductive health coverage, Obama is basically telling congressional Democrats, “Hey, work it out amongst yourselves.”


Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but
eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure,
pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of
those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover
abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Needless to say, this would be a really bad scene.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood have action alerts to keep Congress from using health reform to decrease women’s reproductive health access.

For more on why abortion rights are important in health reform, read my colleague Dana Goldstein.

Join the Conversation

  • MarySophia
  • Lily A

    Oops oops oops! I hit “reply” to the wrong post.
    This was meant to be a response to the one right above it where Alex Catgirl said:
    If the final bill curtails women’s reproductive health choices, kill the bill.

  • Brittany

    I forgot I must be trolling if I’m against abortion.
    Please don’t be a tool. I can state that abortion is murder without tearing someone up and calling them a murderer for having one. I’m against the act itself, not the person having an abortion, as much as I disagree with it.

  • Mighty Ponygirl

    No, sorry, that’s not how it works. If you call something murder then it means that the person going for it is a murderer. We do it for grown humans, no? If I contract a killer to off my husband, I stand trial right along side the murderer. That’s how it works. You don’t get to declare something is “murder” but believe that the person who is committing the act is not a murderer. Seriously — listen to yourself. What would you have us do when a woman “murders” her 2 year old child? Slap on the hand and disapproving frowns? No? Well, what if she “murders” a three-week old fetus? If it’s murder, you have to do time for it. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

  • Phenicks

    Michelle Obama’s role as first lady does not include domestic violence against her husband because it would make your day. Sorry- she’s not a screaming uncivilized banshee and she actually loves her husband so kicking him in the ass isn’t going to happen.
    As far as your comment on what you were *rumored* to hear- I’d say do some fact checking first. But at the end of the day if its free abortions vs. free or affordable heart transplants to save lives then the latter is always going to win.

  • http://thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com

    More women today die from the side effects of hormonal contraception than died in America when abortion was illegal in all 50 states. The number of women who killed themselves trying to have illegal abortions was less than 1,000 per year, and steadily dropping. So saying that making abortion illegal will result in a ton of women killing themselves isn’t just insulting and degrading to all women, it’s an urban legend.
    If you really were concerned with womens health and womens lives, you’d support eliminating hormonal contraception and replacing it with NFP.

  • spike the cat

    And of course let’s also factor in the number of women who die in childbirth, shall we? Hmmmm?

  • thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com

    If you want to meaningfully reduce the “number” of women who die in childbirth, you just need to make childbirth safer. If you say that eliminating or reducing childbirth in general is necessarily a good thing, you’re just treating pregnancy like a disease.

  • spike the cat

    Well shoot you, could use that argument to push for safer contraceptives too then, lol.
    I’m only bringing maternal mortality up because folks love to cherry pick when it comes to looking at the data for reproductive health. If you are going to use numbers to make a point, then by all means you should be including maternal mortality data as well—-and while you’re at it, a comprehensive overview of all of the short term and long-term health problems caused by pregnancy and labor, which conservatives seem to brush under the rug.

  • http://thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com

    Pregnancy isn’t a disease, so reducing the overall pregnancy rates as a means of reducing the maternal mortality rates is meaningless. If you want to meaningfully reduce the maternal mortality rates, you need to make childbirth safer.

  • spike the cat

    You’re flat.out.wrong.
    Contraception is also about delaying childbirth and spacing out children. Contraception absolutely has had an enormous role in making childbirth safer by allowing young women—especially in poorer countries where they are forced to marry young—to delay childbirth, which in turn reduces morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy.
    Furthermore this has implications on development and accumulation of wealth and resources in communities. Women when given options tend to be predictably rational about motherhood and will make decisions based on the level of resources in their communities. And this has been one of the largest contributers to development.