probably the most important thing i've ever posted
stopping the stupak amendment, which would effectively remove abortion coverage for many women (including me) who already have it in their private insurance plans. Please don't shut down on this issue. It's really easy to see the word 'abortion' and make a snap judgment and write things off one way or another. This amendment isn't about federally subsidizing abortion, this amendment isn't about the legal status of abortion. What it is about is taking something that is legal, that is currently covered by many many private insurance policies and making it so that that already existing coverage would be taken away. That's kind of the opposite of healthcare reform.
Also, this is why the amendment isn't 'not a big deal'.
"...we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions." (emphasis mine) According to this report (which was done by George Washington University, so neutral, research institution), the stupak/pitts amendment would also make it really difficult for there to be a kind of supplemental abortion insurance you could buy yourself. The analysis also says, if you allow me to paraphrase, insurance companies are jerks and also don't want to get in trouble and don't have experience discerning necessity in these kinds of cases, and would therefore probably err on the side of not covering procedures that sit near the line. So, under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, you wouldn't be covered under your insurance, you couldn't buy supplemental insurance to cover it in case, and if it came down to the wire, and you did need a medically indicated abortion, your insurance company would be more inclined to turn you down in case someone else comes along and decides it was 'elective'.
the good news is that the senate's proposed bill doesn't include this language. Let's keep it that way.
Also, this is why the amendment isn't 'not a big deal'.
"...we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. As a result, Stupak/Pitts can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions." (emphasis mine) According to this report (which was done by George Washington University, so neutral, research institution), the stupak/pitts amendment would also make it really difficult for there to be a kind of supplemental abortion insurance you could buy yourself. The analysis also says, if you allow me to paraphrase, insurance companies are jerks and also don't want to get in trouble and don't have experience discerning necessity in these kinds of cases, and would therefore probably err on the side of not covering procedures that sit near the line. So, under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, you wouldn't be covered under your insurance, you couldn't buy supplemental insurance to cover it in case, and if it came down to the wire, and you did need a medically indicated abortion, your insurance company would be more inclined to turn you down in case someone else comes along and decides it was 'elective'.
the good news is that the senate's proposed bill doesn't include this language. Let's keep it that way.