LIVID again, if you are interested

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

1 2 ► Go

Go to page...

12/10/2009 12:43

Subject: LIVID again, if you are interested

Anonymous

I mentioned in my last update that Senator Feinstein told my story on the Senate floorduring the debate of the Hatch-Nelson amendment. I've copied an excerpt of her remarks below. I just have just say, Senator Feinstein rocks!!!

Mr. President, simply put, I believe this amendment would be a harsh and unnecessary step back in health coverage for American women.

What this amendment would do, as I read it, is to prohibit any health insurance plan that accepts a single government subsidy or dollar from providing coverage for any abortion , no matter how necessary that procedure might be for a woman's health, even if she pays for the coverage herself.

The proponents of this amendment say their sole aim is to block government funds from being used to cover abortion , but the underlying bill already does that. In the bill before us, health plans that opt to cover abortion services--in cases other than rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake--must segregate the premium dollars they receive to ensure that only private dollars and not government money is used. They argue that segregating funds means nothing--you heard that--and that money is fungible. However, this method of separating funds for separate uses is used in many other areas, and there is ample precedent for the provision.

For example, charitable choice programs allow agencies that promote religion to receive Federal funds as long as these funds are segregated from religious activities. We all know that. We see it in program after program. If these organizations can successfully segregate their sources of funding, surely health insurance plans can do the same. Additionally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must certify that the plan does not use any Federal funding for abortion coverage based on accounting standards created by the GAO.

This amendment would place an unprecedented restriction on a woman's right to use her own money to purchase health care coverage that would cover abortions. Let me give my colleagues one example. Recently, my staff met with a bright, young, married attorney who works for the Federal Government. She and her husband desperately wanted to start a family and were overjoyed to learn she was pregnant. Subsequently she learned the baby she was carrying had anencephaly, a birth defect whereby the majority of the brain does not develop. She was told the baby could not survive outside of the womb. She ended the pregnancy but received a bill of nearly $9,000. Because she is employed by the Federal Government, her insurance policy would not cover the procedure. Her physician argued that continuing the pregnancy could have resulted in ``dysfunctional labor and postpartum hemorrhage, which can increase the risk for the mother.'' The physician also warned that the complications could be ``life threatening.''

However, OMB found that this circumstance did not meet the narrow exception in which a woman's life, not her health, is in danger. The patient was told: ``The fetal anomaly presented no medical danger to you,'' despite the admonitions of her physician. The best she could do was to negotiate down the cost to $5,000.

Now, this story, without question, is tragic. A very much-wanted pregnancy could not be continued and, on top of this loss, the family was left with a substantial unpaid medical bill. Health insurance is designed to protect patients from incurring catastrophic bills following a catastrophic medical event. But if this amendment passes, insured women would lose any coverage included in the underlying bill, even if she pays for it herself. Why would this body want to do that? I can't support that.

A woman's pregnancy may also exacerbate a health condition that was previously under control, or a woman may receive a new diagnosis in the middle of her pregnancy. It happens. If this amendment passes, women in these circumstances would also learn that their insurance does not cover an abortion . In some cases, it may be unclear whether the woman's health problem meets the strict definition of life endangerment.