Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Duty vs. desire Previous entry: Sen. Vitter doesn’t know if Loving v. Virginia was a correct decision: ‘I haven’t read the case’

Why “inconsequential” isn’t an argument

The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services has released a report demonstrating that progressives weren’t kidding around when we said that the Stupak-Pitts amendment was going to deprive all insured women of abortion coverage over time. 

The report concludes 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.”

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

What’s interesting about the debate over impact is not that it will have such a large impact, or that it was intended to.  What is interesting is that anti-choicers are trying to minimize the effects of this amendment in the first place, necessitating such a response.  This is because they have a larger strategy of trying to mainstream misogynist policies, and position them as minor “compromises” to be made as little treats thrown to buy off the religious right. (Sarah Posner has an interesting rundown of how this worked with Stupak-Pitts here.)  Because they’re all so damn eager to lie for Jesus, the troops have picked up the message and started to run with it.  Even in the comments at Pandagon, we have forced birthers putting forward the puzzling argument that Stupak-Pitts is inconsequential, and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it.

If you think about it, though, this position makes no fucking sense whatsoever.  If it’s inconsequential, why fight for it?  Aren’t anti-choicers supposed to be motivated by their enduring love for innocent, mindless fetal life?  Then they should be, if this is inconsequential, in the streets mourning the fact that this will not save a single life for a single fetus.  They failed miserably, if this is inconsequential.  After all, they hit the streets They freaked out and made fools of themselves in the Senate.  They lobbied like crazy.  They got Bart Stupak to hold up the bill.  They made this whole thing a center stage issue, despite pro-choice attempts to keep the bill abortion neutral.  They shouldn’t be defending this amendment, if it’s inconsequential.  They should be its loudest critics.

Instead, they’re celebrating this and defending it.  Even though their bizarro defense is that it’s not going to have a big impact.

I personally try to avoid wasting my time on pushing for ineffective, inconsequential legislation.  That we expect the anti-choice movement to feel differently is kind of odd, though some of the pro-choicers making the “not that big a deal” argument apparently do feel that anti-choicers are unique in that sense.  I can sort of see their point of view, since anti-choicers are part of the bigger reactionary forces in the culture war, and what these people want above all other things is to stick it to liberals.  Which means that no matter what the actual impact on women’s lives the Stupak-Pitts amendment has, they’re happy, because they win and we lose and they get to act like assholes about it, which is their main goal. 

But I’m far from convinced.  Anti-choicers are, after all, dedicated misogynists.  They’re not going to be satisfied with merely hurting the feelings of feminists, or being annoying.  If their actions don’t create a bottom-line degradation in the quality of life for women nationwide, they’re really not that interested.  We’re talking about people who loathe sexually active women so much that they stake out women’s health clinics to scream at them.  That’s not the behavior of people who just like getting a rise out of liberals.  This amendment was written and supported because it’s going to have a big negative impact on women’s well-being.  And make no mistake about it.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:47 PM • (32) Comments

This is so effective, it seems like it has to have been planned. Some commenters at other sites have noted Coe and The Family could have been behind this idea.

Comment #1: Seebach  on  11/18  at  08:25 PM

Even if it did absolutely nothing, they’d probably still be celebrating the fact that they have a majority of the House saying in a recorded vote that they hate women and want them to suffer and die.

Comment #2: libdevil  on  11/18  at  08:27 PM

It was absolutely planned, though I don’t know if it had to be a long term thing.  The second you have it explained to you how the health care exchange is meant to work, you can see how this would effectively end abortion coverage.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/18  at  08:43 PM

I honestly don’t know what the upshot of this is going to be.  There’s a relatively big loophole in the abortion rider.  If insurance companies prefer the insured to get abortions, I imagine they’ll make the fee for this rider nominal and encourage their clients to purchase it.  I was under the impression that insurance companies preferred an abortion to a pregnancy anyway.

But the Hyde Amendment was always a ridiculous measure.  Even given the most generous definition of abortion, the US Government kills people all the time.  I haven’t seen any legislation blocking federal funds from going to pay for death row.  And heavy forbid we should drop anything less than 60% of our discretionary spending on our intercontinental war machine.

This “conscience amendment” clause is just taking a bad idea and stretching it to the furthest illogical conclusion.

Comment #4: Zifnab  on  11/18  at  08:48 PM

If you read the link, you’ll find that the rider is not actually a loophole.  This is for two reasons: 1) Stupak-Pitts is written in such a way that a rider, while promised to be available, will likely be illegal and 2) Most women don’t expect to need an abortion and so won’t buy such a rider.

Seriously, women who believe they’ll need an abortion one day are a tiny percentage of women who actually get abortions.  That’s why unintended pregnancies that result in abortion have such a huge impact, as the woman involved has to seriously think about her decision.  Those of us who know exactly what we’d do in what circumstances tend to be the anally retentive people who use contraception consistently in the first place, and while the anal retentive do have unintended pregnancies, they have fewer of them.

Which is to say that I think some women might buy such a rider—-a percentage of women who have abortions mentally planned for this possibility—-but most of those who could get pregnant will not buy a rider.  Even though I can’t imagine they’d cost very much.  But would they be cheaper than just saving the money or borrowing it?  I doubt it.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/18  at  08:53 PM

Most women don’t expect to need an abortion and so won’t buy such a rider.

Not to mention how fun it would need to be to buy the “I’m a dirty, filthy whore” rider from some middle aged white guy.

Comment #6: Seebach  on  11/18  at  09:00 PM

Not sure of the legality of this, but if insurance companies really did save money by having people have abortions instead of carrying unintended pregnancies to term, and having this insurance made people sufficiently more likely to have abortions so as to save them money, then I could imagine some sort of ‘buy this rider, get a discount’ deal where adding this coverage lowered the cost of your care.
I have no idea if the statistics work out to make this a profitable deal for insurance companies, but it seems plausible given the price differences between maternity/pre-natal care and abortion.

Comment #7: jalmondale  on  11/18  at  09:03 PM

It seems like the real victim here won’t be regular $300 Planned Parenthood I don’t want to have this baby abortion, but OMG this baby is trying to kill me “medically necessary” abortions.

I fail to see how this is a smart move politically.

Comment #8: bellacoker  on  11/18  at  09:15 PM

Addendum to previous post #7 (now that I’ve actually gone and read the full amendment):
It looks like such a rider wouldn’t be legal - all overhead for the rider must be paid for via the premiums from the rider. Which means that even if abortion coverage saves money, if the overhead for dealing with the rider is sufficiently high, insurance companies would not be allowed to offer it.

On a slight tangent, the amendment also makes it legal to discriminate against providers who offer abortion services, but not against those who don’t. Haven’t heard any discussion of the potential implications of that bit of nastiness - thoughts?

Comment #9: jalmondale  on  11/18  at  09:17 PM

I fail to see how this is a smart move politically.

Because no one wants to think about pregnancies going horribly wrong, and even if you do tell them, they have a strong tendency to stick their fingers in their ears and shout, “LALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!”  It happened with the “partial-birth abortion” law, where doctors and patients testified that the banned procedure was often the best way to preserve the patient’s future fertility but legislators didn’t want to listen so they could continue to believe that the only reason women have late-term abortions is that they’re dirty whores, not because a woman just discovered that her wanted baby has no brain and will never survive the birth process.

Comment #10: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  10:09 PM

bellacoker: I fail to see how this is a smart move politically.

Because the pro-lifers have changed the terms of debate so that the late-term, medically necessary abortions are actually regarded as more morally wrong abortions than the early abortions.

Comment #11: Jesurgislac  on  11/18  at  10:12 PM

Amanda at #5 said exactly what I was trying to get at when I commented on another person’s suggestion that Planned Parenthood or someone could make abortion insurance available.

And bellacoker hit on the other thing that scares me about this. Most people can scrape up the money for an optional abortion, but by the time it gets to “The baby is going to kill you, please let us save your life,” the costs are going to be bankrupting even for a middle-class family.

Comment #12: Samantha Vimes  on  11/18  at  10:14 PM

Stupak-Pitts is a big win for the anti-choicers.  They get to be all sanctimonious about preventing public tax dollars funding “evil” abortions all while turning a blind eye to the fact that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies will continue to be aborted, not carried to term.  They just absolve themselves of any responsiblity by not allowing any public spending.  Women will just have to find a way to pay - beg, borrow, sell something - in order to get necessary medical services.

Insurance companies won’t care - they save money - not only will they not have to cover a pregnancy, they won’t have to cover the cost of the abortion, either.

Does anyone know if Stupak-Pitts allows coverage of abortions due to lack of fetal viability?

Comment #13: CParis  on  11/18  at  10:19 PM

I’m a lesbian trying to get pregnant. If I had the choice right now of a less expensive plan with no abortion coverage or a more expensive plan with abortion coverage, you can bet I’d take a more expensive plan with abortion coverage. The only abortion I’m going to need is going to be if my life or health is in danger, or if the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with what I consider a happy life. I would not bring a child into this world who is going to die soon after birth, or live in pain. And though a pregnancy I conceive now will be wanted, I will have an abortion not only if my life is in immediate danger, but if my health is compromised. I am not going to be one of those martyrs who are told they will most likely lose their sight but heroically go through with the pregnancy, or that I have a high risk of stroke but I will follow through even if I am paralyzed. I don’t care that someone else’s religion says they have to save the baybeez; mine says the life of the pregnant woman is paramount. I imagine the “moderates” like Stupak (anyone else see him call himself that on Hardball last night and start throwing things at the TV?) aren’t going to be big fans of mine, making me probably not the best poster child for why abortion coverage is necessary for every woman and girl from puberty through menopause. But I’ll happily pay into that pool even though only for a small percentage of my fertile years is there any possibility that I could need an abortion, and I’ll never have an unwanted pregnancy. Any man who has a wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, or friend he cares about had better pony up too. I’m in the small percentage of women who gets pregnant without a man being present.

I’m still mad 24 hours later that Stupak called himself a moderate. My partner wanted to change the channel because she feared I was going to have an aneurysm from listening to him.

Comment #14: one jewish dyke  on  11/18  at  10:34 PM

This is great. Since we will no longer spend tax money on things that offend people, I’ll be down to the IRS office bright and early tomorrow to collect my refund for the portion of my taxes that funded George W. Bush’s wars.

Comment #15: Bitter Scribe  on  11/18  at  11:01 PM

You know what, it’s not inconsequential either.

Human beings are individuals.  We perceive life, and all its effects, as individuals.  Which means, when ONE woman needs an abortion, be it to prevent a stroke, remove a dead fetus, or “simply” let her live her fucking life the way she wishes to, and this amendment prevents her from doing so*, that is of MONUMENTAL consequence to her.

We are not the goddamn Borg Collective here, where if one woman’s life is ruined it’s like the United States getting a splinter.  Her life is all she has.

That is NOT *checks dictionary* lacking worth or importance.

*yes, nitpicking trolls, that’s what it does, quite often.

Comment #16: Kyra  on  11/18  at  11:10 PM

“It’s inconsequential” is just politicalese for “you’re inconsequential” or in other words, “fuck you.”

Comment #17: Dan  on  11/19  at  12:07 AM

Are doctors objecting to the Stupak Amendment? Because I think we need some DOCTORS to lose their shit over this testifying before Congress. Because when a woman is dying in front of them from a pregnancy gone wrong, I think they will have an opinion, and I think that if they have to spend a lot of time and money saving her life, they would like to get paid.

Comment #18: KMTBERRY  on  11/19  at  12:35 AM

It seems like the real victim here won’t be regular $300 Planned Parenthood I don’t want to have this baby abortion, but OMG this baby is trying to kill me “medically necessary” abortions.
I fail to see how this is a smart move politically.

This is my big fear.

When you go in for your 20 week ultrasound and discover something horrible, like an almost complete lack of amniotic fluid, and learn that the baby you wanted, the one with the strong heartbeat has absolutely NO chance to live.

Or when the baby has died.

Those pregnancies aren’t necessarily threatening a mother’s life YET.  By the time a doctor would deem a pregnancy a medical emergency, the woman is septic or hemorhaging.  Seriously.  So few doctors know how to do a D & C, that women are told to stay in hotels nearby in case they start to hemorrhage.

When you know your baby has no chance at life, what do you do?  Do you opt for a D & C?  You can no longer get an intact D & E, which would give you the best health results and give you a body to hold.  Do you induce labor, which is more dangerous, but the only way to insure you have a body to autopsy to know for sure what went wrong?  Do you carry the baby until your body becomes septic or expels it on its own?  You’ll be ordered to stay on bedrest due to the danger, and it could take months.

There is no good option here, but you do have to choose.  No one should have the right to make that decision except the woman involved—there is no “right” answer.

But if abortion is not covered, then your only option is to continue to carry a doomed pregnancy or a dead fetus or spend THOUSANDS of dollars.  If only “medically necessary” abortions are covered, insurance corps will not cover abortion unless the mother’s life is actively in danger.  Fuck her health or continued fertility—a uterus is not medically necessary.

The women who will be hurt the most by Stupak’s fucking amendment are women who WANT their pregnancies and want their babies.

Comment #19: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/19  at  12:36 AM

Because no one wants to think about pregnancies going horribly wrong.

Bingo. I was thinking the other day about how this is one of the (mostly) unintended consequences of the way we teach the human reproduction story. From the smallest kid’s book to the much more detailed teen “What’s happening to my body” books, the focus is almost ALWAYS on “The egg gets released, the sperm fertilizes it, the baby starts to grow.”

We focus on the “successful” outcome, which on some level makes perfect sense if you’re trying to teach a five-year-old how her baby brother came to be. On the other hand, it subconsciously sets up and supports the idea that this is how MOST pregnancies go.

So you end up with this colossal tide of ignorance, in which people think that all fertilized eggs implant, that all zygotes become fetuses, that most/all fetuses are carried happily and straightforwardly to term.

I first started to understand the consequences when I was trying to talk with people about real-life situations. Hello parents, your daughter is having an ectopic pregnancy. Do you know what that is? Oh yes, they assure me. But no, they didn’t. Not at all. To her detriment. Or my own father, when I tried to talk to him about how the pill actually *works.*

Ignorance of basic biology has consequences. I don’t know totally how to solve this, because loading people up with a world of terror about everything that can go wrong is just mean (a la the “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” fear-mongering). But I do think that a big piece of what allows most American women (and men) to float along on a sea of denial that “*I’ll* never need an abortion,” is ignorance of the nuts-and-bolts of their own bodies, and the flat reality behind the 1-in-3 lifetime stat (one in three American women will have an abortion).

Comment #20: Witt  on  11/19  at  01:10 AM

Stupak isn’t going far enough!

He should follow the Japanese model:  No public funding of ladyparts, period!  (no pun intended)
We don’t cover abortions (definitely for-profit—the earliest abortions start at $1000), birth control (even for medical conditions!) or pregnancy!  Having a baby?  Well, that’s your fault!  Pregnancy is considered self-inflicted, like a suicide attempt!  No coverage for you!  Now please pony up that $4000.  Thx.

And doctor visits related to pregnancy aren’t covered either.  If you pull the right strings, the city office will send you a book of coupons to cover your visits.  If.

So yeah, Stupak and his C-Street buddies should take a hint from the East and dump ALL coverage for those icky ladybits.  After all, we’re 51% of the population and we live a lot longer than men, so we really don’t matter that much.  What’s a few deaths?**

It would totally work, and then Stupak would never have to think about our silly vaginas ever again. 

**Here the death problem isn’t so much the moms as far as I know, but the unwanted babies who get dumped in internet cafe toilets because adoption is unheard of and there’s ONE baby hatch somewhere in the middle of nowhere (and every time a baby turns up they try to find the mother).  Also, very little opportunity and assistance for single moms.  Ta-da.  Brilliant!  Let us furrow our brows trying to figure out how to solve this problem without actually doing anything!

Comment #21: BonAppetit  on  11/19  at  01:18 AM

There is no defendable reason why a Gov’t (that is: publicly paid for) Health Plan should not pay for what the *same Government* has declared to be *Constitutionally Legal*,  not just legislated as OK, the way some states allow one to turn right on a red light.

It’s especially disgraceful when most of the opposition is based on “Religious Beliefs” in theory at least. 

These days, Anti-abortion groups seem Hate Based.  Certainly the murder of Dr. Tiller was based in rage and hate, rather than compassion for “the babies”.  If these people had genuine compassion for late-term abortion fetus’, they’d do a little research to find out the reasons for such drastic surgery.  But as we know, these people create their own reality.  Too bad they’re being allowed, even encouraged by politicians to FORCE their imaginary Religious Reality on everyone.

Comment #22: Kwillow  on  11/19  at  01:27 AM

Amanda at #5 said exactly what I was trying to get at when I commented on another person’s suggestion that Planned Parenthood or someone could make abortion insurance available.

That was me who made that comment, and I still maintain that even if most women wouldn’t think to use such a service, it would be better for it to be available to those who would, than for all women to have nothing.

Comment #23: Karalora  on  11/19  at  01:34 AM

Couldn’t an insurance company set up a separate subsidiary or even an entirely different company for government-subsidized policies, firewalled from the normal company, so that the part that receives federal funds adheres to Stupak and the part that doesn’t receive federal funds doesn’t?  And that way the streams would never cross?

Right now insurance companies (like banks) have dozens of related entities differentiated by what they do and where they are.  Couldn’t they handle it that way, if it’s true that insurance companies see the sheer economic logic of choosing abortion over pregnancy and parenthood and thus have an interest in finding ways to do things that save them money and keep their customers happy?  Maybe that’s covered in the study.  Corporations exist to make money, and when laws get in the way, corporations have a panoply of ways for clearing away such obstacles.  If there’s money in abortion services, I have to think they’ll find a way to offer them.

Subsidized or unsubsidized, people should be able to get abortions covered, period.  But I wonder if there’s a way to turn the profit motive of insurance companies _against_ the state.  Profit usually wins.

Comment #24: FlipYrWhig  on  11/19  at  03:09 AM

BonAppetit:  Well, that goes a long way to explain Japan’s birth rates.  Thanks!

Comment #25: bellacoker  on  11/19  at  03:53 AM

It was only today that I realized that the Stupak amendment will prohibit funding even more medically indicated abortions unless they are “life-threatening”.  It was so easy to miss that point for so long because I didn’t think that even anti-choicers would be bold enough to admit that they want women to risk their health as punishment for sex.  Wow, I’ve had an extremely low opinion of anti-choicers, and yet I still managed to over-estimate them.  They actually want to deny coverage for a medically indicated procedure?  They are some sick people.

Well, this blows apart the whole facade that they just don’t want their tax money paying for an “elective” procedure.  Of course I was never fooled by that claim, but now they can’t even pretend anymore.  They don’t just want to ban coverage for elective procedure, but also for medically indicated ones.

Comment #26: bananacat  on  11/19  at  10:44 AM

Just to state the obvious, the Stupak move blew up any positive impact passing health care reform from the House.  Allegedly this was the Accomplishment of All Accomplishments, Obama got on the phone to say history was being made, and then the Democrats squeezed a huge noxious turd all over it.

Thank you so much.  I am not a patient person, I’d been freaking waiting all god damn year for some progress, and this is what I and all the little people liberal base got.  Way to go again, Democratic Party.

I simply am muted to incredulous silence most days.  The great blogger Barbara O’Brien called this Congress and the few preceding it the most dysfunctional, stupid and incompetent ever to be inflicted upon the Republic.  Half the Democratic men are lucky to find their dicks in the morning, and the Republicans are beyond hopeless.

I wanted healthcare for Christmas.  After what happened in the House fuck it, go ahead’n ruin my birthday in the Spring.

[inclines head]  Good luck on your move to the Big Apple, Ms. Amanda Marcotte.  May the forces of good fortune and all the best wishes of the little people be forever with you.

Comment #27: paradox  on  11/19  at  10:46 AM

What, anti-choicers in favor of legislation that means women dying in horrible pain? Quelle Surprise.

It’s really the indirect effects that are killer here. Something that was a straightforward medical decision becomes a how-can-we-pay-for-this, maybe-if-we-wait clusterfsck. With fewer procedures, fewer hospitals have the expertise they need, which means even higher cost and sick women traveling, more attention and guns aimed at the doctors who continue to perform medically necessary abortions and so forth. Stupak isn’t fit to carry bedpans for the women he hates.

Comment #28: paul  on  11/19  at  11:32 AM

We focus on the “successful” outcome

Right on.  “Pregnancy and birth are beautiful” memes are only accurate some of the time.  Pregnancy is often a battle between mother and fetus; as I’ve said more than once to anti-choicers, let’s consider throughout human history how many fetuses have killed women in childbirth vis-a-vis how many women have aborted.  I bet it’s about even. 

If we could strip culture of the myth that all pregnancies are wanted, glowing and sustained to term, that all fetuses are “normal,” and that all births are successful, we might actually get somewhere in respecting the mother—respecting reality—in the harrowing equation of reproduction.

Comment #29: Ranylt  on  11/19  at  12:12 PM

Thank you Amanda
I am sick and f**king tired of women having to suck it up and having people say to us “don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”!
Eff that noise.
I’m angry as hell.
ANGRY.

Comment #30: Danica Lefse Queen  on  11/19  at  05:10 PM

I am sick and f**king tired of women having to suck it up and having people say to us “don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”!

I would like someone to explain to me what’s “good” about denying reproductive health care to women.  I think I’m going to ask that next time I get fed that line.

Comment #31: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  10:16 PM

It is my sincere hope that our Democratic representatives somehow get Bart Stupak pregnant.

Comment #32: Punditus Maximus  on  11/19  at  11:09 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.