Feminism, Abortion Rights and Health Care Reform

[UPDATE: It seems the rumors were accurate — TPM is reporting that Stupak will vote yes, in exchange for the White House affirming that the Hyde Amendment still exists. Props to the pro-choicers in the House; not an overwhelming victory, but a victory nonetheless. (And the pro-lifers are pissed.) ]

Right now, it’s rumored that pro-choice and pro-life Democrats in the House have reached a compromise in which President Obama will sign a statement affirming that current law — specifically, the Hyde Amendment — applies to Health Care Reform. In exchange, Stupak and the “I’m with Stupak” group will vote for Health Care Reform, guaranteeing that Health Care Reform passes.

If that’s how things turn out (and it’s not yet certain), then house pro-choicers won — and Stupak and other pro-life fanatics got their asses kicked. Having Obama affirm that current law is current law is an empty face-saving gesture, so that Stupak’s dozen — which has been whittled down to half a dozen — can back down while claiming they haven’t backed down.

But it’s also possible that Stupak and his half-dozen will win some more damaging concession. Plus, it’s still unclear (at least to me) if the provisions in the Senate bill will, in practice, mean that the Hyde Amendment continues to apply — or if it means, in the worst-case scenario, that private insurance will no longer cover abortion. Even in that case, Michelle Goldberg argues, feminists should still support passage of the bill.

The simple fact is that health-care reform, even with its awful provisions on abortion, will hugely improve the health of American women. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 17 million women are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. “In 2008, one in seven privately insured women reported she postponed or went without needed care because she couldn’t afford it,” Kaiser reports. Women are more likely to rely on their spouse’s insurance coverage, leaving them vulnerable if they’re divorced or widowed, if their husband becomes old enough to qualify for Medicare, or if their partner’s employer decides to drop dependent coverage, which is happening with increasing frequency. As a study by the National Women’s Law Center found, “Overall, women are more likely than men to have difficulty obtaining needed health care (43% vs. 30%) — a difference more pronounced for uninsured women (68% vs. 49%).” […]

Needless to say, uninsured women already lack abortion coverage. So the burdens of the abortion restrictions in health-care reform will fall mainly on the middle class. To say this is not to suggest that the concerns of middle-class women aren’t important. […] But preserving health-insurance coverage for abortion at the cost of excluding millions from insurance altogether isn’t much of a victory.

Of course, this debate isn’t just about a utilitarian reckoning of the greatest good for the greatest number. It’s also about principle. Abortion is an important aspect of women’s health care. It’s one of the most common outpatient procedures in the United States, and around a third of American women have abortions during their life. Stigmatizing abortion and segregating it from other kinds of care has a terrible impact on abortion access — many ordinary ob-gyns don’t offer abortion services to their patients, and abortion instruction is severely lacking in medical schools. Health-care reform that excludes abortion from insurance coverage furthers the notion that abortion is aberrant and illegitimate, not something to which every woman has a right.

Anti-abortion forces have had the advantage in this fight because they’re willing to sacrifice the health of millions on the altar of their ideology. Their nihilism gives them leverage. It’s tempting to wish that pro-choice forces could be equally resolute, and it’s possible that stronger demands early on could have made a difference. But it’s too late for that now. The choice is the Senate bill or nothing, and nothing would be a tragedy. There are very few things in this world for which it is worth compromising reproductive rights. But the greatest expansion of the social safety net in a generation is one of them.

So what happens in the future?

I’d like to see pro-choice legislation advance in Congress, but — as we’ve seen — pro-life Democrats are a strong force in the House. So even if the Senate goes forward with reforming the filibuster, I’m not sure that pro-choice legislation can pass the House. Towards that end, probably nothing is more important than supporting pro-choice primary challenges to pro-life democrats. Even if those primary challengers lose, they still send a message to Representatives that grandstanding pro-life Democrats will pay a price.

So if you’d like to donate some money, the person to donate to right now is Connie Saltonstall, who is challenging Stupak. Here’s what NOW says about Saltonstall:

What a relief that a courageous feminist candidate stepped up to the plate to challenge the co-author of the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Thanks to Connie Saltonstall, Stupak’s bullying attempts to use health care reform as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to abortion will be contested at the polls. Saltonstall stated: “I believe that [Stupak] has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible.”

Saltonstall is a strong supporter of the full range of feminist issues, including reproductive justice, affirmative action, pay equity, constitutional equality and equal marriage rights. More specifically, she is in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment, fully funding the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, rescinding the Defense Of Marriage Act, expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to add paid leave, and undoing the Bush-era damage done to Title IX.

If Stupak does vote for Health Care Reform today, we probably have Connie Saltonstall to thank for it.

* * *

As an aside, can I say that I really fucking loathe Bart Stupak? Not because he’s pro-life; I understand that some people can sincerely disagree with me on that issue, but be decent human beings in other ways.

No, I loathe Stupak because he’s a shallow pro-lifer, someone who cares more about making a big public stink and getting on TV than substantively reducing abortions. But even more, I loathe him because even while he doesn’t have an ounce of sympathy for the women who’d be harmed by his policy, Stupak whines about how haaaard all this is on… Bart Stupak.

It’s genuinely disgusting that Stupak feels nothing for people lacking health care, or woman he’d force to give birth unwillingly, versus his enormous pity and sympathy for himself. It’s like listening to a serial killer whinge on about how his palms sting after a long day stabbing innocent people to death.