Stupak, or a Step Back?

This past Wednesday a rally of college students gathered in Harvard Square bearing signs that read "Health care, yes!  Stupak, no!" and "Abortion is not a class-based right!"  They were protesting the Stupak Amendment, a piece of legislation that modifies the hotly-contested health care bill to prevent federal funding of abortions except in extreme cases such as life-threatening pregnancies, rape, or incest.  The fact that the amendment was proposed in large part by Democratic Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan suggests that the debate framing the amendment is not only one between Democrats and Republicans but additionally one within the Democratic Party itself.  While conservative Democrats argue that the amendment will encourage greater Republican and Independent support of the "Affordable Health Care for America Act," liberal Democrats and feminist pro-choice organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) insist it would signify a step back in the fight for equality and women's rights.

So how exactly does the Stupak Amendment detract from the fight for women's equality?  Since the health care bill—if passed—would primarily provide insurance to those currently uninsured, excluding abortion coverage from a federal health care package would be at the very worst a maintenance of the status quo.  Given that this is the case, isn't some health insurance better than no health insurance?

To answer this question it may be helpful to look at the Stupak Amendment itself.  What the text actually states is the following: "No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion."¹  It goes on to qualify that abortion coverage can be independently purchased as long as no federal funds are used.  However, institutions such as NOW see this amendment as something far more dangerous than a maintenance of the status quo.  The fact is that although abortion rates have fallen in the last twenty years, they have risen sharply for low-income "women who make less than twice the federal poverty line."²   Thus the uninsured are those most likely to need and benefit from abortion coverage.  Yet because the amendment specifies that no federal funds can provide for "any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," insurance companies will be financially incentivized to cut abortion coverage from their plans entirely.  Furthermore, it is conceivable that any supplemental abortion coverage would have prohibitively high premiums because of adverse selection.  That is, because pregnancy is a consequence of personal choice, the women purchasing abortion coverage would be high-risk investments.  High-risk, low-income individuals who are unable to afford the health insurance premiums?  Sounds familiar...

Such a prediction about the Stupak Amendment may be overstated.  However, the history of our current health care system offers us some idea of how the amendment could become an attempt to limit abortion for those who need it most.  And in practice, the broad language of the amendment (italicized above) will definitely limit other types of health care as well.  In the end, it is possible that the health care bill will not pass without the Stupak Amendment.  But whether the potential widespread restriction of abortion is worth the cost of such an amendment to low-income populations, already underserved, is your call.

-Tara Tai

Photo Credit: Jeanne Dang

References:

1. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment: Limitation on Abortion Funding, H.R., 111 Cong., The New York Times (2009) (emphasis added).

2. De Vries, Lloyd. "Abortion Rate Figures Mixed: It Rose Sharply For Low-Income Women, While Dropping For Teens." CBS News Health. 8 Oct. 2002.