Difficult Issues Will Remain Even If Senate Democrats Pass Health Bill

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made two major changes to the Senate’s version of the health overhaul legislation – removing the proposed “public option” and restricting abortion coverage – that have helped ease tension enough to secure more votes for the bill, but left advocates with much to complain about.

Politico: “Just hours after a critical Monday morning vote in the Senate,” – cementing Reid’s changes – “Democrats were already talking about future changes to the health reform effort in hopes of calming a revolt among liberal activists. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, predicted the government health insurance option long favored by liberals would be part of that second look” (Brown and O’Connor, 12/21).

Politico: A separate story examines other thorny issues, including Medicare cuts and a tax on costly “Cadillac” health plans provided by insurers. Deep cuts to Medicare could limit lawmakers options in finding future areas for savings, and the tax could eventually hit more middle-class workers. “Neither the Medicare nor the tax numbers can be easily ignored in what could be a game-changing fight now triggered by the need to twice raise the debt ceiling in a matter of months” (Rogers, 12/22).

The Washington Post: On abortions, the latest Senate language is meant to win support by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a moderate, antiabortion Democrat who was also wavering on the bill for other reasons. The provision has also “achieved a rare feat: It is drawing contempt from both sides.” The awkward compromise could require people who receive government subsidies to help buy health insurance to write two premium checks each month, one for health coverage and a separate one, around $1 per month, for abortion coverage (MacGillis, 12/22).

Kaiser Health News/McClatchy: “Amid all their squabbling over health care legislation, congressional Democrats agree on the need to regulate how insurers spend their customers’ money.” The bill would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. (The House version raises that number to 85 percent). States that have enforced similar regulations did not manage to contain premiums (Appleby, 12/21).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions: Community-Based Health Care Models; U.S. Leadership In Reproductive Health Care

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts

‘Accompaniment’ Can Reform Health Care Around The World

“We don’t need to start fresh to create patient-centered medical homes. We just need to look to community-based models of care that are effective but often go unrecognized,” according to a Boston Globe opinion piece by Heidi Behforouz, the director of the Prevention and Access to Care and Treatment project, which is based on “a model that Partners in Health pioneered to fight HIV in rural Haiti and drug-resistant tuberculosis in Peru.” According to Behforouz, community-based models of care might be overlooked “because much of the care is being delivered by ‘paraprofessionals” who have not been extensively schooled in the biomedical model and don’t practice office-based care.” She notes that community health workers’ “schooling and expertise is in the art and science of what we call ‘accompaniment.’”

“What do we mean by accompaniment? We mean that you walk with the patient – not behind or in front of her – lending solidarity, a shoulder, a sounding board, a word of counsel or caution. Empowering not enabling.” According to Behforouz, “Accompaniment is a beautiful thing. As practiced in the central plateau of Haiti, the shantytowns of Peru, or Boston, it may just be what is needed to reform health care, here and abroad” (12/21).

U.S. Should Show ‘Sustained’ Leadership To Improve Women’s Access To Reproductive Health Care

“The new [Obama] administration faces many urgent issues, but few are more critical or touch more people than the need to ensure that sisters, daughters, mothers and wives around the world all enjoy basic reproductive health and rights,” Elizabeth Maguire – president and CEO of the nonprofit Ipas, who directed the U.S. government’s international family planning assistance program between 1993 and 1999 – writes in a News & Observer opinion piece.

“Despite many challenges, solutions are within reach and affordable, and sustained U.S. leadership is critical,” writes Maguire, who calls for the permanent repeal of the Mexico City policy. Maguire writes that “the good intentions of the Obama administration are hampered by harmful restrictions, including the ban on foreign aid for abortion known as the Helms amendment. Even without overturning the ban, the United States could do much more to support safe abortion care in cases of rape, incest or pregnancy that threatens a woman’s life or health, including training and equipping health workers to provide safe abortions in these circumstances. Such assistance would help to reduce substantially complications of unsafe abortions” (12/19).

This information was reprinted from globalhealth.kff.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Global Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at globalhealth.kff.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Abortion Compromise In Senate Health Bill Fuels Strong Reaction From Both Sides

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Groups both supporting and opposing abortion rights are criticizing a Democratic compromise on abortion coverage that cleared the way for the Senate health reform bill (HR 3590) to advance through its first procedural hurdles over the weekend, the New York Times reports (Pear, New York Times, 12/20). The abortion agreement preceded a 60-40 cloture vote around 1 a.m. Monday to move the bill forward, the first of three cloture votes needed on the way to final approval of the bill (Murray/Montgomery, Washington Post, 12/21). Tuesday morning, the bill cleared the second hurdle on?a 60-39 vote (Whitesides/Smith, Reuters/Washington Post, 12/22).

The abortion concessions were made to appease Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an abortion-rights opponent who said he would oppose the bill without more stringent limitations on federal funding of abortion services. Nelson and Senate Democratic leaders reached an agreement that would allow individual states to decide whether to bar insurance plans participating in the exchange in their state from offering abortion coverage. In addition, consumers receiving federal subsidies for insurance coverage who purchase plans covering abortion would be required to write two separate premium checks — one check to cover the bulk of their plan and the second check to cover the cost of abortion services. The compromise would not affect employer-provided insurance coverage, though “it is expected that more people would go into the exchange over time for coverage, broadening the impact of its rules,” according to the Washington Post (MacGillis, Washington Post, 12/22). In addition to the abortion language, the Senate compromise would increase new tax breaks for adoption (Levey/Hook, Chicago Tribune, 12/20). The provision also would provide new services for pregnant teenagers (New York Times, 12/20).

White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) were among those participating in the talks with Nelson (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Google News, 12/22). Boxer said, “When you have both extremes saying they’re unhappy, I think it’s a fair compromise,” adding that the deal provides “momentum going into the final conference” (Pear/Herszenhorn, New York Times, 12/22).

Abortion-rights supporters warned that the requirement forcing consumers to write two checks for plans that cover abortion would cause frustration among consumers and lower demand for such plans, eventually leading insurers to omit abortion coverage altogether (Washington Post, 12/22). Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, “We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill” (New York Times, 12/20). She also said, “The absurdity of requiring these two separate checks doesn’t accomplish anything toward the supposed goal of segregating federal funds” (Washington Post, 12/22).” Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said the Senate bill “amounts to a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping antiabortion law for the rest of us.” She called on senators who support abortion rights to reject legislation that includes the compromise (O’Brien, The Hill, 12/19). According to the Times, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Women’s Law Center also oppose the compromise (New York Times, 12/20).

The Post reports that the Nelson provision achieved the “rare feat” of “drawing contempt from both sides” (Washington Post, 12/22). Opponents of abortion rights criticized the plan for allowing recipients of federal subsidies to purchase plans that include abortion coverage. Douglas Johnson, legislative affairs director for the National Right to Life Committee, described the language as “so murky that it’s difficult to predict how it would be implemented” (Washington Post, 12/22). The language has not won the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which backs an amendment to the House bill (HR 3962) by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would prohibit abortion coverage in public and private health plans that receive federal subsidies (Bogardus, The Hill, 12/19).

Nebraska antiabortion groups also criticized Nelson for agreeing to the compromise. Nebraska Right to Life, a longtime supporter of the senator, said it was “extremely disappointed” in Nelson, while other groups branded him a traitor to the antiabortion-rights cause. However, the chair of the Nebraska’s Democratic Party described Nelson’s decision to support the compromise as “courageous” (Beck, AP/Road Runner, 12/21).

Conference Committee Debates Ahead

The developments over the weekend greatly raise the likelihood that Senate Democrats will pass the bill by their self-imposed Christmas Eve deadline. However, they also complicate the next stage of the legislative process, in which the Senate and House bills will be reconciled in a conference committee. House Democrats who support and oppose abortion rights have expressed opposition to the Senate compromise, though any move to alter the language also could disrupt the delicate balance in the Senate (New York Times, 12/22).

Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette (Colo.) and Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), the leaders of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said in a joint statement Saturday, “This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also probably unconstitutional” (The Hill, 12/20). Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who authored an earlier amendment proposing segregation of funds, said that the new compromise was “far from perfect” but that is superior to the Stupak amendment because it “will allow most middle- and low-income patients to purchase comprehensive health insurance plans” (The Hill, 12/19). Stupak said that it would be “extremely difficult” for him to support a final bill including the Senate language (New York Times, 12/22).

NPR Examines Remaining Obstacles

NPR’s “Morning Edition” on Tuesday reported on the debates that lie ahead as lawmakers seek to reconcile the differences in the House and Senate bills. “Perhaps the most difficult issue to reconcile will be abortion,” according to “Morning Edition.” Although both sides say they “want the bill to reflect the status quo, … finding language that does that — and no more — has proved difficult,” “Morning Edition” reports. Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy at PPFA, said, “Who in their right mind would ask somebody to write two checks for their health insurance?” She added, “You wouldn’t ask anybody to do that for any other aspect of their health care. Can you imagine asking somebody to write a separate check for their coverage for diabetes or heart transplant or any other medical procedure? You never would do that” (Rovner, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 12/22).

Editorial Calls for Passage Despite Abortion Concessions

A New York Times editorial says that allowing states to bar plans that cover abortion services from insurance exchanges “amounts to deplorable interferences by state governments into decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor.” While “implacable Republican opposition to reform and obstruction from a handful of Democrats” have weakened the bill, the editorial adds that the Senate “has a chance this week to get past the bickering and haggling that have robbed it of Americans’ trust and pass a historic piece of legislation” (New York Times, 12/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Judge Extends Restraining Order Blocking Okla. Antiabortion Law

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Oklahoma County District Judge Daniel Owens on Friday extended a temporary restraining order blocking a state law that would require a woman seeking an abortion to complete a 10-page questionnaire about her age, race, relationship with her partner, reasons for the procedure and other personal information, which would be posted without her name on a public Web site, CNN reports. Owens denied the state’s motion to dismiss the Center for Reproductive Rights’ lawsuit challenging the law, putting the issue on hold until a Feb. 19 hearing.

CRR filed the suit on behalf of former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton (D) and another Oklahoma resident. Jennifer Mondino, an attorney with CRR, said, “We are very pleased with today’s ruling. This law is a profound intrusion on women’s privacy and a waste of taxpayers’ money.” Stapleton said, “Nosy neighbors with some effort could identify, or even worse, misidentify these women who answer these questions” under the law.

State Sen. Todd Lamb (R), who drafted the legislation and is running for lieutenant governor, said, “We’re not trying to embarrass anybody, hurt anybody or make anybody’s identities known. That’s not the purpose of the legislation.” He added, “We want to collect hard data that can be a useful tool in helping prevent future unwanted pregnancies.”

Oklahoma estimates that the state Department of Health would need to spend about $250,000 annually to implement the law. If the law takes effect, the department would have to have the Web site in place by March 1, 2011, and doctors would have to begin submitting questionnaires 30 days later (Drash, CNN, 12/18).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Blogs Comment On Health Reform Abortion Compromise, D.C. Abortion Funding

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “Ben Nelson Sends Abortion Back to the States,” Emily Bazelon, Double X’s “XX Factor”: The requirement that consumers will have to write two separate checks under Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb.) antiabortion provision in the Senate health reform bill (HR 3590) “is truly an idea only a diabolical bureaucrat could love,” but the “other just-for-Nelson concession doesn’t seem so bad to me,” Bazelon writes. Although allowing states to decide whether to allow insurers to cover abortion “will leave some women in conservative parts of the county who enter the exchanges without insurance that covers abortions,” it is “a lot better than the blanket ban in the House version of the bill because of the Stupak amendment,” Bazelon contends. She adds, “At the same time, pro-choice groups have to protest, because Nelson’s opt-out enshrines in law the geographic reality that has eaten away at the national right created by Roe v. Wade, namely that abortions are somewhere between difficult and impossible to get in swaths of the South and West” (Bazelon, “XX Factor,” Double X, 12/21).

~ “Pro-Choice Caucus Meeting With Lawyers and Insurers on Senate Health Care Bill,” Michael O’Brien, The Hill‘s “Blog Briefing Room”: Members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus are meeting with attorneys and insurance companies this week as they decide how to proceed in response to abortion provisions in the Senate health reform bill, O’Brien writes. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair of the caucus, said, “We’re still trying to figure out what this language means. It seems at the very best incredibly cumbersome for women, and at worst unconstitutional.” According to O’Brien, “Groups both in support of and opposed to abortion rights have criticized the bill, but the Pro-Choice Caucus has yet to make an official pronouncement on the final bill, the result of which could sway the razor-thin vote tally in the House.” DeGette said, “We really do want to have a health care bill; we don’t want to kill the health care bill over abortion. But we have said we will not agree to restrictions beyond current law” (O’Brien, “Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/21).

~ “The Nelson ‘Compromise:’ What it Will Cost Us”: Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: By supporting an abortion compromise needed to secure the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for the Senate reform bill, Senate Democrats “aided the anti-choice community in achieving one of its primary goals: further stigmatizing reproductive and sexual health care, including but not limited to abortion, and making such care ever-harder for women to secure,” Jacobson writes. According to Jacobson, the requirement that all enrollees in health plans offering abortion services write two checks for their premiums — one used to cover the bulk of the premium and the other used just for abortion coverage — will have “several negative effects, some very similar to or the same as the Stupak amendment” to the House health care bill (HR 3962). The elimination of a provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill ensuring that each state insurance exchange contains at least one plan that offers abortion coverage and at least one plan that does not will mean that “millions fewer women will have coverage for abortion care than do now,” Jacobson writes. Because it “is cheaper to provide a woman who knows she does not want to carry a pregnancy to term” with abortion care than it is to force her to carry the pregnancy to term, the compromise’s prohibition on insurers from considering those cost savings when setting premium prices “legislates a ‘market farce,’” according to Jacobson (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 12/20).

~ “Boxer: Pelosi ‘Supportive’ of Senate Abortion Language,” Meredith Shiner, Politico‘s “Live Pulse”: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is “supportive” of the latest compromise over abortion language in the health reform bill, Shiner reports. “I talked to her, and I said to her I thought this was fair, and she thought it was,” Boxer said. She added that Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) “thought it was fair. Some of the other women don’t like it — don’t love it. Nobody loves it, but it’s fair.” Boxer also urged the House to accept the abortion language the Senate has negotiated (Shiner, “Live Pulse,” Politico, 12/21).

~ “The Abortion Deal That Saved Health Care (for Now),” David Gibson, Politics Daily‘s “Disputations”: “If the traditional definition of a compromise is a deal that pleases no one, then the newly minted provision on abortion funding in the health care deal that won over Ben Nelson is already a classic,” Gibson writes. Both supporters and opponents of abortion rights have denounced the deal. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, “It is a sad day when women’s health is traded away for one vote.” On the other side of the issue, conservative Catholic activist Deacon Keith Fournier called the deal Nelson’s “Judas moment.” According to Gibson, the House likely will not pass a bill without the support of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose amendment to the chamber’s bill would prohibit insurance plans that receive federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage. That means any changes to the Nelson deal “are likely to be in the direction of more rather than less restrictive,” Gibson writes. If liberals cave, they could make inroads with antiabortion-rights groups, “[b]ut it would further alienate pro-choice organizations,” he says. Eventually, they will have to make “the agonizing decision” of whether to torpedo the legislation or tolerate it, Gibson writes (Gibson, “Disputations,” Politics Daily, 12/21).

~ “A D.C. Repro Rights Victory”: Kay Steiger, The American Prospect: The omnibus fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill (HR 3288) signed by President Obama last week lifts a prohibition on Washington, D.C.’s use of local tax revenue for abortion services that Congress has imposed annually since 1988, Steiger, an associate editor for CampusProgress.org, writes. D.C. will now be able to put public funds toward Medicaid coverage of abortion for low-income women, Steiger notes, allowing it to join “a sparse patchwork of states that allow public funding for abortion.” According to Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, “This is really something to be celebrated from the point of view of women who live in D.C. and are low income.” Steiger writes that if “the D.C. council decides to fund abortion services for low-income women, it will alleviate real suffering among its residents.” She cautions that, as with all D.C. laws, Congress retains oversight and could re-impose the ban in the future. “As many pro-choice activists have seen in the health care reform debate, ensuring access to abortion — especially for poor women — is a constant battle, even in a pro-choice city like Washington, D.C.,” Steiger concludes (Steiger, The American Prospect, 12/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Stupak Says Antiabortion-Rights House Dems Unhappy With Language In Senate Reform Bill

Healthcare Prof:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Tuesday that he and other antiabortion-rights House Democrats “will find it very difficult” to support the Senate’s health reform legislation (HR 3590), which Stupak said contains less stringent abortion restrictions than his amendment to the House bill (HR 3962), The Hill‘s “Blog Briefing Room” reports (O’Brien, “Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). However, Stupak also said that he does not think the issue of abortion is “insurmountable,” adding, “I think it can be worked out.” Stupak said he has been in talks with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — whose threats to withhold support for the Senate bill led to the abortion compromise — and other lawmakers to find common ground on the issue (Werner, AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Stupak’s amendment would prohibit insurance plans that receive federal subsidies from covering abortion services but says that women who receive federal subsidies can use private funds to purchase a separate rider policy to cover abortion care (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). The Senate abortion language — which has drawn criticism from both sides — would allow health plans to cover abortion care but require all enrollees who purchase such plans to write two separate premium checks for their coverage: one check would cover the bulk of their benefits, while the second check would pay for abortion coverage (AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Stupak has called the Senate language “unacceptable.” In a Fox News interview Tuesday, he indicated that House Democrats might have problems with the Senate bill “[n]ot just because of the abortion language, but even other language in the Senate bill those of us in the House are not pleased to see” (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22).

The abortion issue and other differences between the House and Senate bills — such as a public insurance option contained in the House bill but excluded from the Senate version — will be addressed in a conference committee after the Senate bill is approved. According to the Los Angeles Times, passage of the Senate bill has been virtually assured since Monday morning, when the legislation cleared the first of three procedural hurdles by garnering the necessary 60 votes. The final Senate vote is scheduled for 8 a.m. Thursday (Hook, Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

The fate of reform may hinge on how each bill’s abortion language is reconciled in the conference committee, the Times reports. It remains unclear whether “sizable faction” of antiabortion-rights Democrats in the House will oppose a final bill if abortion provisions do not satisfy their demands (Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

According to “Blog Briefing Room,” the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus is still weighing how to react to Senate’s abortion language (“Blog Briefing Room,” The Hill, 12/22). Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a leader of the Pro-Choice Caucus, said, “Our initial reaction is we don’t like it.” The caucus has said it will not support a bill with abortion restrictions beyond current law (AP/Miami Herald, 12/23).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Judge Denies Request For ‘Necessity Defense’ In Trial Of Accused Tiller Shooter

4.5 (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (2 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts

Sedgwick County, Kan., District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Tuesday that Scott Roeder, the man accused of fatally shooting Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, cannot use a “necessity defense” to argue that he believed the murder was justified to save the lives of fetuses, McClatchy /Los Angeles Times reports. Wilbert did say, however, that he would “leave the door open” for Roeder to present other evidence and arguments that he killed Tiller because he believed he was saving fetuses. According to McClatchy/Times, that might make it possible for Roeder’s attorneys to argue that he committed the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter, which is defined under Kansas law as an “unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” Roeder is charged with first-degree murder (McClatchy /Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

Last month, Roeder told the Associated Press in an interview that he killed Tiller to save the lives of the unborn. He has pleaded not guilty to one charge of first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault for fatally shooting Tiller in the foyer of his Wichita church on May 31 (Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/11).

Wilbert said Kansas law does not recognize a necessity defense, and even if it did, it could not be used because abortion is legal in Kansas (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23). Allowing someone to use his personal beliefs to justify criminal activity in an attempt to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would “not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy,” Wilbert said, quoting a 1993 Kansas Supreme Court decision (AP/Boston Globe, 12/23). He also said that he might limit what the defense can say in opening statements and implied that he would be unlikely to allow testimony indicating Roeder was acting in others’ defense because the law requires an “imminent threat.”

Wilbert also denied a motion to move the case out of Sedgwick County. The defense had argued that intense news coverage there would make it impossible for Roeder to receive a fair trial (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23). In addition, Wilbert denied a motion that would have blocked prosecutors from striking potential jurors based on their beliefs about abortion (AP/Boston Globe, 12/23). Jury selection in the case will begin Jan. 11 (McClatchy/Los Angeles Times, 12/23).

Before Tuesday’s ruling, NPR’s “Morning Edition” examined the history of the attempted use of the necessity defense in cases of violence against abortion clinics and providers. The defense has never been allowed in those cases (Lohr, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 12/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Mass. Senate Candidate Coakley Says She Would Support Health Overhaul Bill

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley (D) said in a statement on Sunday that she would “reluctantly” support the Senate health reform bill (HR 3590) even though it contains new abortion restrictions, a shift from her statements during the primary that she would oppose a bill that went beyond current abortion laws, the Boston Globe reports.

As recently as last week, Coakley said in an interview that she would not vote for a health care bill that imposes tighter abortion regulations, calling those restrictions “related to an agenda that others have, many of whom aren’t interested in health care reform.” In her statement Sunday, Coakley expressed regret that the Senate bill omits a public insurance option and allows states to bar insurance plans that offer abortion coverage from insurance exchanges. “It is a reminder that the battle for a public option and choice goes on,” she said (Viser, Boston Globe, 12/22).

During the Democratic primary campaign, Coakley was the first candidate to announce opposition to the House’s health reform bill (HR 3962) because of its abortion restrictions. That announcement initially drew scorn from one of her opponents, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), but he later altered his position clarifying that he voted for the House bill with the antiabortion-rights amendment to move the legislation along and that he would oppose a final bill with similar restrictions (Samuelson, Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). As the Dec. 8 primary approached, Coakley used the issue of abortion as a fundraising tool (CongressDaily, 12/21).

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Coakley is “heavily favored” in the Jan. 19 race against state Sen. Scott Brown (R) (Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). The Senate could reconvene on the same day as the Massachusetts Senate election, meaning the winner could cast a vote on a final health care bill (Wangsness, Boston Globe, 12/21). According to the Monitor, Coakley’s stance in favor of the Senate bill could be motivated by an unwillingness to be the sole Democratic senator to oppose the legislation, since all Senate Democrats appear likely to vote for the chamber’s bill (Christian Science Monitor, 12/21). Brown opposes the Senate bill and supports some restrictions on abortion funding (Boston Globe, 12/22).

Coakley, Brown Spar Over Abortion Issues at Forum

During a recent forum, Brown attacked Coakley for switching her stance in support of the Senate bill, saying that “[d]uring the primary, [she] basically took a principled position” but has “already abandoned that position.” Brown also noted that he supports abortion rights. He said he favors strong parental rights and opposes abortion late in pregnancy, which he said Coakley supports — prompting Coakley to say that Brown misstated her position on the issue. Coakley said that she supports late abortion in cases in which a woman’s health or life is in jeopardy. The forum also featured libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy, who is not related to former Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sen. Kennedy’s death in August left the Senate seat vacant. Joseph Kennedy said he opposes the health care bill but supports abortion rights (LeBlanc, AP/Boston Globe, 12/22).

Globe Editorial Praises Coakley Position

While Coakley’s “position on health care legislation and abortion rights has not been a model of consistency,” she deserves praise for ultimately supporting the Senate bill, a Globe editorial states. Coakley “should be commended for making this commitment now, rather than either refusing to support the bill or keeping everyone guessing until the Jan. 19 election,” the editorial says. The editorial notes that despite the abortion restrictions, the bill provides insurance for millions of women and prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on gender (Boston Globe, 12/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Abortion-Rights Groups Highlight Va. State Senate Candidate’s Link To Crisis Pregnancy Center

Healthcare Prof:

Abortion-rights groups are using Republican Stephen Hunt’s association with a church-affiliated crisis pregnancy center in their campaign against his bid for a Virginia state Senate seat, the Washington Post reports. In a special election set for Jan. 12, Hunt, a former Fairfax County school board member, faces state Del. Dave Marsden, a first-term Democrat. The race is drawing attention because it could tilt the balance of power in the Virginia Senate.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said that fliers collected in May from Assist Pregnancy Center in Annandale, Va., said that condoms fail one-third of the time and that abortions are the “most preventable cause of breast cancer.” Hunt served as volunteer president of the pregnancy center’s board of directors from 2001 to 2006. The 20-year-old center provides no-cost parenting classes and childbirth counseling.

The fliers and brochures distributed by the center show that much of its medical information is “dangerously incorrect,” NARAL spokesperson Emily Polak said. The claim about condoms is based on a 22-year-old study of 10 couples, and mainstream health organizations say there is no association between breast cancer and abortion. Although abortion-rights advocates and opponents agree that the information in the fliers is outdated and incorrect, abortion-rights groups say the statements are indicative of the myths perpetuated by CPCs, the Post reports.

Hunt said the new criticism is part of a “highly politicized effort” to paint him as a right-wing ideologue, much the same way Democrats highlighted the socially conservative positions of Virginia Gov.-elect Robert McDonnell (R) during his campaign this year. “This is the pro-choice groups going over the top,” Hunt said, adding that there are documented links between breast cancer and abortion.

Assist Executive Director Jane Fuller said the fliers have been removed. A spokesperson for Care Net, which offers guidance to organizations like Assist, said that the center has come under new leadership since the pamphlets were distributed and that volunteers are reviewing Assist’s literature (Kravitz, Washington Post, 12/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Editorials, Opinion Piece Examine Abortion Compromise In Senate Health Reform Bill

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Three newspapers recently published an opinion piece and editorials responding to a compromise reached between Senate leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that would allow individual states to decide whether to bar insurance plans from offering abortion coverage if they participate in the state exchanges. The agreement also would require consumers receiving federal subsidies for insurance coverage who purchase plans covering abortion to write two separate premium checks — one check to cover the bulk of their plan and the second check to cover the cost of abortion services. Summaries of the opinion piece and editorials appear below.

~ Derrick Jackson, Boston Globe: “Abortion is the latest example of how a male majority on Capitol Hill continues to control women, directly or indirectly,” Jackson writes, adding that “studies clearly indicate that if women had an equal say in reform, it would take a very different shape.” According to Jackson, “Research shows that women, particularly mothers, continue to pay silent social and economic penalties in a nation that has some of the worst parental leave policies of the industrialized world,” adding that while millions of women will gain insurance under health reform, “they will continue to struggle because of the men of Congress, who listen more to the insurance companies than mothers.” The column concludes, “Health reform may give more coverage than ever,” but “it will also take away from women more rights than ever” (Boston Globe, 12/22).

~ Los Angeles Times: The Nelson provision would “open a new front in the legislative fight over abortion, allowing states to pass laws barring insurers from including abortion coverage in policies for individuals and small businesses,” according to a Times editorial. This could result in “a significant setback for abortion rights in states where social conservatives dominate the legislature,” the editorial says. It “doesn’t make much sense” to let “states ban abortion coverage just for women not fortunate enough to work for an employer who provides it,” the editorial continues (Los Angeles Times, 12/22).

~ Washington Times: A Times editorial claims that Nelson “sold his soul to give government the power to force millions of taxpayers to pay for a procedure they view to be murder.” It says that he backed down from his pledge not to vote for “government health care if it paid for abortion.” According to the editorial, supporters of abortion rights “don’t respect that those who oppose abortion want to be free to choose what their money should be used to support” (Washington Times, 12/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.