Nov 17th, 2009
Posted by Allie Bohm, Washington Legislative Office at 6:22pm	Abortion

Tell the Senate to Protect Abortion Care

Are you angry yet? You should be. As you’ve probably heard by now, on November 7, the House passed its health care reform bill. The problem? It also passed an onerous amendment sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that prohibits anyone who participates in the health insurance Exchange and receives federal subsidies from purchasing a plan that covers abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the woman’s life. Anyone receiving a federal subsidy who wants abortion coverage would have to purchase a separate abortion rider covering only abortion.

Of course, how many people plan for an unplanned pregnancy and therefore purchase supplemental insurance?

Oh, and in the states that already prohibit insurance companies from covering abortion except through a separate rider, many insurance companies don’t offer said rider. Of course, insurance companies could offer plans that cover abortion for individuals who pay their premiums fully out of their own pockets, provided that the companies also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion. Given the costs associated with offering two identical plans and the limited pool of people eligible to enroll in one of the plans, we don’t know how many insurance companies will elect to take this route.

The reality is that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. We may not all feel the same way about that fact, but everyone's circumstances and health care needs are different and a woman facing an unintended or medically catastrophic pregnancy should be able to decide what is best for herself and her family. We should respect and support a woman’s decision and prohibit government interference in her most private and personal health care decisions.

Fortunately, there is something you can do. Go to our Action Center and tell your senators to oppose a Stupak-like amendment and protect women’s ability to make private health care decisions without government interference. After all, health care reform should improve women's health and lives, not hinder their ability to get the health care they need.

Permalink |	Abortion

1. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 17th, 2009 at 6:53pm

   Why should Americans who moraly object to abortion be forced to pay for it? Your arguments sound a bit hypocrital to me.

2. Tax Payer/US citizen Says:
   Nov 17th, 2009 at 9:07pm

   First, pregnancy is not a health care issue. You are not sick! Second, there are so many women who repeatedly get pregnant and are unmarried without employment that already gets a free ride off the state and government. Lastly, if you get pregnant, that was of your own will so why should tax payers foot the bill? By the way, anyone associated with the ACLU is nuts. But I am sure that has never been addressed.

3. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 17th, 2009 at 9:11pm

   No, I'm not telling them because abortion is the murder of innocent children & tax dollars should NOT be used to fund such a thing that many of those people disagree with. Sorry to say, but I hope you lose.Yeah, I'm angry. But not at them. At the ACLU!

4. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 17th, 2009 at 10:45pm

   A fetus is NOT a child nor is a fetus a human being. It is a FETUS!

   Anyone who contradicts this statement is wrong and ignorant of very easily observable facts. Thus, abortion does not equal murder.

5. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 18th, 2009 at 1:34am

   How is a Fetus not a human being? Are you saying a Fetus could be anything? Instead of a human being born, maybe an infant rabbit will pop out instead? Abortion is ending the life of a person that could be born.

6. Doulos Says:
   Nov 18th, 2009 at 5:42am

   Fetus is just one of the stages of a human life, just as enfant, adolescent, and adult is a stage of a human when he/she exits the womb. Bad logic Mr./Mrs. Anonymous.

7. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 18th, 2009 at 8:08am

   Doulos, you need to find Jesus!

8. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 18th, 2009 at 8:21am

   Maybe Allie Bohm should have been aborted when just a FETUS!

9. Doulos Says:
   Nov 18th, 2009 at 8:39am

   Why, is Jesus lost? I believe he came to find the lost. I don't see the correlation between me trying defend the sanctity of life and Jesus needing to be found. Bad logic again. John 3:3

10. Fetus Lover Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 9:51am

    To the person who said a fetus is not a person, check the dictionary. Fetus - in humans, the unborn young from the end of the 8th week to the moment of birth. (American Heritage Dictionary)Before 8 weeks a fetus is called an embryo.

11. Oust Inhofe Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 9:54am

    Your belief in Jesus, and my lack thereof, has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. Anytime pure ideology is used as a wedge such as this it is absolutely wrong. The entire anti-abortion ideology is based strictly on emotion. Even the Bible is silent on abortion ( http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php ).

    In my opinion, the entire anti-abortion movement is about oppression of women and misogyny. Why should ED medication be covered for men? Maybe your God doesn't want them getting it up anymore. It's a sign they shouldn't be procreating, isn't it?

    My atheist-earned tax dollars go that horrible "Faith-based and Community Initiatives" program. I whole-heartedly support the public option, including abortion coverage. Abortion is legal, it is a medical procedure, and you cannot possibly know (or judge) what circumstances prevail for any individual seeking an abortion. It is none of your business!

    But who am I kidding? No facts or concern for others will change you mind.

12. Kenz Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 3:25pm

    if you people are so angry at the aclu, then why look at the site?!
    just because they fight for something you dont agree with doesnt make one insane.
    they fight for things THEY think is right. apparently not many people have the dignity to accept that your opinion isn't the only one out there.

13. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 3:30pm

    Dear Oust Inhofe,
    Having ED is a completely different medical issue from abortion. We are talking about killing human lives. At watever stage you consider an embryo, fetus or baby a life, the fact remains it's a human life. The point of the matter is we should not have socialized medicine period for this specific reason. We the people are not a whole - we should be treated individually and thus be responsible for ourselves. Is it safe to assume that you are for abortion but against the dealth penalty?And I believe it is my business when you are taking my money to fund anything through the government. Have you forgotten - For the people, by the people? I would hate to think that your Mother might have aborted you. The "anti-abortion ideology" is not based on emotion...It's based on the fact that you are killing another person, regardless of your religious or non religous beliefs. I hope that the medical procedure lobotomy will be a covered surgery.

14. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 3:33pm

    I think people come to the ACLU site to be completely informed and educate themselves. It seems that the ACLU can't accept that there opinion isn't the only one out there trying to remove rights of others based on their emotions.

15. Oust Inhofe Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 5:14pm

    I am definitely against the death penalty, yes. I am not "for" abortion. It's not my choice. I am male, I cannot get pregnant. I am "for" the individual's right to make that choice for themselves. My feelings don't enter into it. It's legal and it's constitutionally protected.

    I agree with your assertion that you don't want your tax dollars funding an insurance option that allows abortions. That's a valid point, but you completely ignore the fact the MY tax dollars go to fund religious proselytizing (and don't pretend it isn't happening) and I, via Hein vs FFRF, have been told by the SC that I don't have any standing to complain about it.

    If you disagree with abortion, then by all means, don't have one. I think it should also be noted that the public plan won't cover abortions. The Stupack amendment is attempting to withhold all coverage from people that dare to pay for their own abortions even using another plan altogether. That's coercive and pandering.

    Also, you severely damage your credibility by seeming to suggest I ought to get a lobotomy simply because I disagree with you. And bringing my mother into it is simply trying to be inflammatory. Fortunately, my mother and I agree on this issue as we have discussed it at length.

16. Oust Inhofe Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 5:20pm

    I missed your mention of "socialized medicine". Please, for your safety, step away from the Fox News. It's a public OPTION. It's competition in the marketplace. It's a choice between a government-funded plan and the already available private plans.

    Seriously, if you're so anti-socialist, do not ever call another cop for help, or use the post office, or drive on the federal (or state) highway system, or call the fire department, or use the public education system, or attend a state college...shall I go on?

17. Joe Walker Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 7:22pm

    The abortion issue is only one of the many problems with the Pelosi/Obama Healthcare reform. Slow the train down and allow time to develop the needed reform with a more practical approach focusing also on reducing costs. This new bill will introduce 10 new taxes. Why rush something as important as this issue? I don't get it. There are other ways to provide healthcare without the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." I would like to see some of these "alternative" but realistic plans and improvements given a fair chance before throwing a trillion dollars in the wind. (the actual cost has never been nailed down.) Here are some of the proposals out there right now:
    1. provide tax credits for people to buy health insurance, paid for by taxing employer-provided health benefits.
    3. make changes to the private insurance market and medical lawsuits aimed at reducing the cost of insurance, along with an expansion of public health clinics to serve people who are difficult to cover under insurance plans, such as the homeless.

    4. increase the use of electronic medical records and change the way medical lawsuits are litigated so that health care costs are reduced and insurance becomes more affordable
    6. provision made available to strengthen state-run insurance programs for high-risk patients with pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain private insurance.

    7. establish “State Health Insurance Exchanges,” where people could shop for private insurance and guarantee all Americans the same level of benefits available to members of Congress.
    8. create private insurance options in the Medicaid program and require wealthy seniors to pay higher premiums for Medicare’s prescription drug coverage, among other provisions.
    And finally I want to see a guarantee that the government will never interfere with medical decisions made by doctors and patients. I really don't think anyone would want to see a government-run health plan that would competing with private insurance. Have you been to your local post office lately? If you had good service, you are one of the few.
    Peace, Joe

18. Joe Walker Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 7:23pm

    sorry...my numbering was off. Aren't you glad I reduced my list?

19. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 7:33pm

    I'm as pro-choice as anyone, but if we need the Stupak amendment in order to get the votes for health reform, then that's what we need. I would love to get this bill to the President's desk without the amendment, but I'm not too angry otherwise.

    I don't think we should use taxpayer funds to fund abortion procedures, and for the government to subsidize a plan that pays for abortions is essentially doing just that. And with all things considered, an abortion in the first trimester is not so expensive that no women could afford it. I would even argue that any woman who can afford to puy private insurance and pay those premiums every month can reasonably be expected to pay the 500$ that a first trimester abortion would cost.

    Getting universal health care for Americans is worth the minor inconvenience that the Stupak amendment might cause.

    And to address the argument in the article: "Of course, how many people plan for an unplanned pregnancy and therefore purchase supplemental insurance?", the nature of buying any health insurance is preparing for the unexpected. The argument that you are presenting is akin to asking "how many people plan to get sick and therefore purchase an insurance plan which would cover their medical expenses"? It is not unreasonable to expect that a woman purchase the rider if there is any possibility of her needing to get an abortion. The only legitimate point here is that a rider might not be available, but I think that if there is a demand the private insurers will provide the supply.

20. SSC Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 7:40pm

    @ Oust Inhofe,

    I have an honest question. Why do you say that "The Stupack amendment is attempting to withhold all coverage from people that dare to pay for their own abortions even using another plan altogether", when women can purchase insurance riders with their own money? The Stupak amendment allows women to use their own money to purchase abortion coverage, so long as it is offered as a rider. Since the plans without riders are subsidized by taxpayer funds, this amendment just seems to ensure that taxpayer funds aren't going to cover abortions but it doesn't prevent women from using their own money to buy a rider from a private insurer to cover abortion.

21. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 7:44pm

    @ Joe

    "I really don't think anyone would want to see a government-run health plan that would competing with private insurance. Have you been to your local post office lately? If you had good service, you are one of the few."

    Then go to UPS. We want a public option, just like we want a Post Office. If you don't like the post office you can go to a private company. If you don't like the public option, choose a private one.

22. Joe Walker Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 8:09pm

    @ anonymous

    "Then go to UPS. We want a public option, just like we want a Post Office. If you don't like the post office you can go to a private company. If you don't like the public option, choose a private one."

    The way the healthcare bill is designed is to eventually eliminate any choices. As far as postal delivery, that's not really a comparison. UPS is specialized. Point is, government run business lose when it comes to customer service and care. Sorry if you work for the Post Office, you might be one of the good ones.

23. Heather Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 8:54pm

    Hello, I am young (19) and sexually active. I happen to have an Impanon rod in my arm as a contraceptive to hopefully prevent me from getting pregnant before I finish my college education. I could not afford to have an abortion, nor could I afford the birth control method I find to be the best in the market. If my birth control was to fail, a rare but possible circumstance, I would not know until it was too late to ask for a day after pill, should I not go to college, or suffer for a pregnancy that would end up with sub par care for the child and myself?

    I ask this question knowing that I will not get an abortion myself, but also knowing that there are people in tighter circumstances than my own who would be forced to have a child when they are too young to have the mentality (or money, which I would add would be the cause of this in the first place) needed to provide an environment that would be best for the child.

    All the peace,

    Heather C.
    university of alaska fairbanks

    I may be a conflict theorist, but at least I care about society and it's failures.
    VOX president

24. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 10:03pm

    @ Heather C.
    I'm speachless. Are you serious? You want to live irresponsibly and have responsible people pick up the tab for you?

25. Andy Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 10:31pm

    @ Joe

    "The way the healthcare bill is designed is to eventually eliminate any choices."

    That's not true. The only way that choice would be eliminated is if private insurance could not compete with the public option, which it can in the same way that private schools compete with public schools.

    And in my opinion the bigger issue here is that for millions of Americans there is no choice at all, tens of millions in this country are uninsured. Not to mention the millions who are insured but not covered for pre-existing condtions, or countless others who can be dropped arbitrarily from coverage.

26. SSC Says:
    Nov 18th, 2009 at 10:38pm

    @ Heather

    While I am extremely pro-choice and sympathize with the situation that you've described, this does not mean that public funds should be made available to cover abortion procedures. An abortion is an avoidable, elective procedure that many taxpayers would strongly object to on ethical grounds. You are the one who has made the decision to be sexually active and take the risk of pregnancy, not the taxpayer.

    I would never want to take away your legal right to have an abortion, but it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund said abortion procedure. If you make the decision to be sexually active, you must accept the responsibility that comes with that decision and make sure you have the means to deal with the potential consequences.

27. Alex Says:
    Nov 19th, 2009 at 12:52am

    MERRY CHRISTMAS ACLU.

28. Doulos Says:
    Nov 19th, 2009 at 1:07pm

    Actually "Oust Inhofe", scripture is not silent on this matter. But I'll leave the research to you, being that you are so highly well versed. Historical fact, many former pagan or secular nations considered the murder of an unborn child/human an act against the state under penalty of death. But we are much more advanced than those "barbaric" states, or are we when it is being used as a means of "birth control". Please don't quote me the extenuating circumstances under which you believe it would be lawful. It's awful when any human life, born or unborn, is denied our constitutional right to purse happiness, as allusive as it has become for many. I will now cease this debate. Let us respect each others first ammendment, liberal, right-wing, or otherwise.

29. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 19th, 2009 at 7:15pm

    @ Doulos

    Religion does not and should not guide our government's abortion policies. The Constitution does not apply to "unborn human life" (ie embryos, fetuses, etc.), there is no constitutional right for an embryo to pursue happiness. The court has upheld the Roe v. Wade ruling 20-something times now, which affirms that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion if they so chose.

    And for the record "respecting each others first amendment" does not mean that we can't critizise the flawed viewpoints of others. We are excersizing our first amendment rights by doing so.

30. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 19th, 2009 at 11:43pm

    I don't care about Abortion, personally I'm against it, so MY tax dollars shouldn't go for something I don't believe in. FUCK YOU.

31. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 20th, 2009 at 12:06am

    Fuck you, man. Apparently you do care about abortion. I don't, so they can use my tax dollars for it.

32. Steve Says:
    Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:02pm

    Fetus is latin for "child" or "offspring".

33. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:18pm

    Nah. I'm not angry. I breathing s breath of realief. FINALLY! I'm not paying for some tramp because she couldnt keep em' closed. No thank you.

34. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 20th, 2009 at 3:21pm

    i wrote the above comment. I forgot to add...

    Yes. I am a Woman, for those who believe a woman cant be pro-life. A REAL one.

35. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 22nd, 2009 at 9:21pm

    fetus is a life...
    fetus is a baby....
    ABORTION IS MURDER!

    It's just crazy to say a fetus is not a baby what else could it be....do some research.

    How could anyone could have an abortion? Go look at these videos on the internet of how these innocent "babies" are murdered. If you can see those and still believe it's not murder you need to find the nearest church and talk with a pastor. It's just breaks my heart. No one has the right to decide if a child has the right to live or die. Practice birth control but if you do get pregnant put on your big girl pants and take care of that baby or keep your big girl pants on and you won't have to worry about it. Its murder and I would hate to stand before God on Judgement Day and make him understand why I killed that baby.

36. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 22nd, 2009 at 11:02pm

    I'm just an adolescent, so i must not be human. It's ok to kill me, isn't it? Good argument, huh?

37. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 23rd, 2009 at 8:15am

    ^^^^

    *facepalm*

    That's not even close to anyone's argument.

38. deborah woody Says:
    Nov 23rd, 2009 at 11:16am

    Hello,
    I would like for the Senate to protect abortion rights for women and to continue the protec, them for many years in the future, and then continue into new ventures to change the laws: protect our rights.

    deborahwoody4040@hotmail.com

39. fama_volat2206@yahoo.com Says:
    Nov 25th, 2009 at 4:09pm

    Here's how I see it: an unborn child is totally dependent upon another for its well-being and continued existence. I would hope that most readers would also agree that a child under the age of say, three, is also unable to completely sustain their life without help or assistance from another person? Why then can a woman murder her own unborn child and not face criminal penalties, while the mother or father of a child under the age of, let's say three again, choose to murder said child because: they weren't ready to be parents, they couldn't afford to feed and clothe them, or because they became over-whelmed? If our nation is going to allow abortions, then we also need to decide at what age a child can totally fend for themselves. This way a parent, or parents, can "off" their child without guilt or jail time. A truly civilized society is determined by how it treats its most vunerable and innocent no matter the age.

40. Heather Again Says:
    Nov 25th, 2009 at 8:03pm

    Hi Guys,

    The comment I keep seeing is that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for abortions, well as it stands I am a taxpayer and I feel like it may be silly that I'll be paying for Viagra, or anti depressants, or for that matter pain meds, cholesterol, diabetes or allergies. I happen to need none of those prescriptions but I will be paying for them for the rest of the country. That is what it is all about, sharing the cost and not worrying about what you need because it will be taken care of. The system we are trying to create would cost everyone money that won't be necessarily going to them self or their family, but that's ok because the greater good is bigger than the individual, we will all be taking care of each other.

    With Luck and Love,

    --Heather Currey
    UAF

41. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 25th, 2009 at 8:17pm

    To the moralist out there, I object to ceaseless and unorganized war, particularly the war on terror, but most wars who's purposes are foggy at best. I, as a male American citizen have to sign up for selective service where if there was draft I would be forced to kill human beings if not directly by proxy; people with experiences, family and who have already changed the world. The Government makes me do this, how different is this? We can't kill the being who has no experience and opt instead to kill the mother's son or the school girl or the preacher or any number of innocent people. We use drones so we can't get hurt but we can flatten cities.

    God Bless you and God Bless America the land of liberty for those we like

42. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 8:36pm

    To the economist out there, I would like to point out that if we are going to publicly fund neo-natal ventilator care at $30,000+ a day, we should equally fund a >$500 abortion. Technology will develop ways to preserve life and prevent death earlier and earlier in pre-natal development- we need a balance to those advancements.

43. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 8:39pm

    To the economist out there, I would like to point out that if we are going to publicly fund neo-natal ventilator care at $30,000+ a day, we should equally fund a <$500 abortion. Technology will develop ways to preserve life and prevent death earlier and earlier in pre-natal development- we need a balance to those advancements.

44. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 5th, 2009 at 10:38pm

    In my opinion, in the case of rape or incest or to save the woman’s life, abortion is a positive good. Abortion for any reason other than that is basically an "elective procedure" which most insurance companies aren't even going to compensate you for, so why should the federal government provide a subsidy for something like that? Should the federal government provide subsidies for facelifts and tummy-tucks as well? It is my understanding that abortions are one of the most inexpensive medical procedures that can be performed anyway. I think that if there is any element of the healthcare bill that deserves to be attacked by the ACLU, it is the provision that requires all citizens to pay for healthcare or face a penalty fine. I'm still not certain how that helps those who aren't covered. If and when this thing passes, all those who were uninsured before will be either uninsured and have to pay a fine, or imprisoned and getting free healthcare. If that isn't a violation of our civil liberties, I don't know what is.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Case-sensitive.