Are abortion rights the best starting point?

I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to sensitize non-feminist folk to issues that have broad implications for women. I attend school in Michigan, where Dave Camp, Vernon Ehlers, Fred Upton, Bart Stupak, Candice Miller, Thaddeus MCotter, Dale Kilder and Peter Hoekstra all voted to write women out of affordable health care this week.

How do you talk to gender skeptics about feminism? Is abortion the place to start? Is there a feminist warm-up issue that is domestic in nature that the general public would agree is a clear manifestation of sexism? Is conversion the ultimate goal? How do you talk about these issues while also acknowledging that even though you are a feminist, you may not have the full truth on feminism, and that your feminism grows, evolves and even adapts?

I wrote the following column on the health care debate as a starting point to
appeal to students, faculty and residents in the broader Michigan area:

*** *** ***

If you have been even halfway plugged to the healthcare debate this week, chances are you have caught wind that many women and their allies are not happy about the recent bill. H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed with a vote of 220-215 this past Saturday night. It is an achievement insofar as policymaking occurs at the speed of molasses and we finally have a health reform bill — that includes a public option, ends pre-existing condition discrimination and extends healthcare to 36 million Americans — that has been punted to the Senate. But one small step for healthcare reform has meant one giant leap back for womankind.

The current plan prevents millions of women from buying insurance
plans that cover abortions, which impacts particular women who would
seek to purchase a plan in the insurance exchange or through the public
option. At issue is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a last-minute write-in
that bans federal monies from being spent on health plans that cover
abortions except in the instance of rape, incest and life endangerment
of the mother.

For those who are getting déjà-vu, read the fine print. The infamous
Hyde Amendment enacted in 1976 prevents federal monies from being spent
on abortion — not insurance plans that cover them. The Stupak
Amendment ups the ante and deals a blow to insurance plans. As the name
of the bill implies, bringing down the cost of insurance plans was one
of the main objectives of reform. But this amendment creates an
environment where women must choose between a more affordable plan and
a private insurance plan that will likely be less affordable but more
comprehensive in its reproductive health offerings.

Some of us work-world bound women may feel spared from all this
drama because we assume that the professions we are headed for will
provide comprehensive coverage. Not so fast, missy. The House bill’s
health care proposal imposes taxes on employers that provide coverage
for their employees that could be up to eight percent of their payroll.
While there is no way to know for sure, employer-sponsored coverage
isn’t necessarily guaranteed in your salaried profession. After this is
over, women in large numbers may need to rely on public plans. Why
should these plans not give them comprehensive reproductive health care
options?

I wouldn’t be so miffed about this doggone Stupak Amendment if its institution hadn’t ousted a perfectly sound compromise on abortion. Under the previous compromise, formerly known as the Capps Amendment, the insurance exchange would provide one insurance plan in every area of the country that covered abortions and one that didn’t cover abortions. In keeping with the Hyde Amendment, it would have subsidized abortions through co-payments and insurance premiums in the event that a woman needed this medical procedure. At the behest of the almighty Catholic lobby, and pusillanimous Democrats who keep late hours in terror of 2010’s election cycle, this compromise was gutted.

This past Monday, President Obama expressed to ABC News his dissatisfaction with the Stupak Amendment. “There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo,” he said. To do this, the Senate must reinstate the previous compromise.

As a sexual health advocate, it’s not lost on me that many abortions represent the possible transmission of an otherwise preventable STI or unplanned pregnancy. The truth is, underneath this long-held stalemate what we all truly want are positive sexual health outcomes and children that are planned and prepared for. While abortion is often a point of virulent disagreement, there are certainly ways to promote informed consent to sex that meet the objectives of anti-abortion and abortion-rights folks. These policies have the benefit of being outside of pressing health care reform and allow us to work together to promote strong families and efficient government spending.

One current plan of this sort is H.R. 3312, the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act. This act prioritizes low-income pregnant women and girls and calls for an increase in access to health care, contraception and sex education. Abortion-rights opponents should know that restricting a woman’s ability to use her own money to make decisions that she and her doctor see fit for her body, her family and her faith are not the way to reduce the number of abortions in America. Policies where coalitions are possible will lead to meaningful progress in American politics.

Reposted from the Michigan Daily.