House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing
Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Testimony by
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present remarks on the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
This bill is a sweeping piece of legislation that would affect nearly all women in this country and would do significant harm to many, especially those women and families who are struggling to make ends meet. While the bill is cloaked in the language of taxpayer rights and federal appropriations, a close examination of its true impact reveals a mean-spirited attempt to interfere with a woman's personal decision-making by denying women insurance coverage for abortion care. Every woman deserves coverage for basic health care, including contraception, maternity care and abortion services should she need it.
This legislation reaches far beyond the already troublesome Hyde Amendment, which as you know is an annual appropriations measure that withholds abortion coverage for women enrolled in
The Bill Would Ban Abortion Coverage for Virtually All Women in this Country, Including Those in the Private Insurance Market
Those who oppose abortion have tried and failed to make it illegal, so instead they have worked to make it almost impossible to obtain. Indeed, some object even to insurance coverage of contraception, the most effective way to prevent unplanned pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.
One of the ways they have accomplished this goal of limiting access to abortion is to make it unaffordable. This bill is their most recent attempt to place affordable abortion care out of reach for even more women.
For those who would make abortion illegal, it is not enough that they have tried to deny abortion coverage to the 9.7 million women who are currently enrolled in
It is not enough that they have denied coverage to women who participate in other federal insurance plans and health programs, making them pay out-of-pocket for abortion care. This includes service women, veterans, and military dependents; federal employees; women in federal detention; Native American women; adolescents in the
The Impact on the Private Insurance Market
No, in order to cut off access to affordable abortion care for the rest of the women in the country, abortion opponents need this bill as the final piece of the puzzle. If
Historically, the vast majority of insurance plans have typically covered abortion services. It is no coincidence--it's an instance where good health policy meets good financial policy to address a woman's health care needs. In our analysis of both the Stupak and Nelson amendments, we raised the concern that
This Bill Would Affect All Women, And Especially Hurt the Most Vulnerable Women
This bill represents more than just meddling in women's personal decisions; by making abortion care unaffordable, it will effectively ban abortion for some women. While it may not seem like a big expense to a Member of
Moreover, cutting off access to abortion has profoundly harmful effects on the public health. Based on the experience with the ban that has long been imposed on women who qualify for
* Births which result from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies are associated with adverse maternal and child health outcomes. These include delayed prenatal care, premature birth, low birth weight, and other negative health effects for children.
* A woman who wants to get an abortion but is denied is less likely to have a full-time job and twice as likely to be a victim of domestic violence. n6
* Women with lower socioeconomic status - in other words, those who are least able to afford out-of-pocket medical expenses - already experience disproportionately high rates of adverse health conditions. Denying them access to abortion care will only exacerbate existing health disparities.
Although most of the women affected by these bans still find a way to end their pregnancies, they often do so at great personal cost. Many are forced to delay their procedure for as long as two to three weeks while they pull together enough money to pay for the care they need, with the price and risks of the procedure increasing the longer they wait. By banning abortion coverage for even more women through private insurance, as this bill would do,
In the current insurance market, coverage denial policies such as the ones proposed in this bill can have a serious and detrimental effect on people's financial security. Even with the premium assistance provided by the Affordable Care Act, there are individuals and families who have to stretch their budgets to pay for health insurance, leaving no margin to pay for medical costs that are not covered by their plans. When policymakers deny abortion coverage and make these health services unaffordable, it can jeopardize a family's financial security. When a woman is living paycheck to paycheck, denying coverage for an abortion can push her deeper into poverty. Indeed, studies show that a woman who seeks an abortion but is denied is three times more likely to fall into poverty than one who is able to get an abortion. n7
Limited exceptions only for rape, incest or danger of death
H.R. 7 limits abortion coverage to the current exceptions in
The need for access to abortion to protect the health of women, not just when they are in danger of imminent death, is critical. As stated by the
In conclusion, this bill would impose a sweeping and unprecedented ban on abortion coverage, with far-reaching and harmful consequences for women's health and economic security. When it comes to the most important decisions in life, such as whether to become a parent, it is vital that a woman be able to consider all her options--including an abortion-- no matter what her income or source of insurance. It makes sense that health programs cover the whole spectrum of women's reproductive health needs, including birth control, abortion, and childbirth, because when people can plan if and when to have children, it's good for them and for society as a whole.
n1
n2 Kenney G, et. al. "
n3 Rosenbaum S, Cartwright-Smith L, Margulies, R, Wood S, and Mauery D. An Analysis of the Implication of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment for Coverage of Medically Indicated Abortions. (
n4
n5
n6 Biggs et al., "Understanding why women seek abortions in the US."
n7 Id.
Read this original document at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/01092014/01092014%20Wood%20.pdf
Copyright: | (c) 2010 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Wordcount: | 1934 |
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News