IOKIYAR Health Insurance Coverage for Abortion Services

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have already taken to task the allegedly 40 anti-abortion conservative Democrats who threatened to scuttle the House health care bill if they did not get a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) says it actually netted about 10 votes for the Dems' health care reform bill. In other words, if push came to shove, 30 of those Dems would have voted for the final bill even if the Stupak amendment weren't included in the bill. Stupak Bought Dems 10 Votes | Talking Points Memo Still enough to scuttle the bill given the 220-215 vote, with one Republican in favor.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment had 64 Democrats voting in favor, and 176 Republicans voting in favor, with Arizona's Rep. John Shadegg voting "present" in a failed strategy in which he could not convince even one of his colleagues to follow his lead; impressive (not).

Rumor has it that there are still pro-choice Republicans. They even have a PAC Republican Majority for Choice, and The WISH List, a group that supports pro-choice Republican women running for office. So where were they? Not a single Republican in Congress voted no on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

It turns out that the RNC has enjoyed a health insurance plan that provides coverage for elective abortion services since 1991. IOKIYAR: "it's OK if you are Republican."

This rank hypocrisy has caused RNC Chairman Michael Steele to reconsider the health insurance plan now that this uncomfortable fact has been made public. RNC to opt out of abortion coverage – Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner – POLITICO.com:

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

As of Thursday, the RNC’s plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

But rank-and-file Republicans said Thursday before the change was announced that the policy should – and would – be changed.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Amy Sullivan of the Swampland blog at Time magazine wrote about the fungibility argument that many pro-life groups and politicians have employed to oppose health reform. The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. You can debate about whether it makes sense to use this strict standard, but that's the argument.

As it happens, Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers "abortion services." A Focus spokeswoman confirmed the fact that the organization pays premiums to Principal, but declined to comment on whether that amounts to an indirect funding of abortion.

Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage–and I'm assuming it doesn't–the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions. If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well. Does Focus on the Family Fund Abortions? – Swampland – TIME.com

This attempt to ensnare all health insurance policies within this fungibility argument is a cowardly back-door attempt to severely restrict a woman's right to reproductive health insurance coverage even when it is paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. If Republicans and anti-abortion activists like Congressman Stupak want to further restrict access to abortion services in this country, they should demonstrate the courage to propose a stand-alone bill to address the issue directly, rather than this cowardly back-door attempt to sneak a measure into an appropriations bill.

The Hyde Amendment (1976) already prohibits federal funding for abortion services. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment's over-reaching attempt to expand this ban to all private health insurance plans by default should be stripped from the health care bill in conference committee.

UPDATE: I agree with Digby's immoderate proposal:

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)  […]

I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.

And ban those television ads while you are at it, too!