Content deleted Content added
Added link; improved phrasing and punctuation |
Added links; removed repetitious passage; improved phrasing |
||
Line 1:
The '''Stupak–Pitts Amendment''' was a proposed amendment to the [[Affordable Health Care for America Act]] of 2010 (AHCAA). It was submitted by [[United States House of Representatives|Representatives]] [[Bart Stupak]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]] of [[Michigan]]) and [[Joseph R. Pitts]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Pennsylvania]]). Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.<ref name=H12921>[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H12921&position=all November 7, 2009 Congressional Record-House H12921]</ref> It was adopted by the House but not included in the [[United States Senate|Senate]]'s version, the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (PPACA). Many pro-choice representatives said they would oppose AHCAA with the Stupak-Pitts language, and proposed to adopt PPACA. Stupak and several supporters said they would oppose PPACA without the amendment, but withdrew their opposition after President Obama promised an [[executive order (United States)|executive order]] to bar such funding. Pro-life groups criticized this action, saying that the executive order would not be effective.
==Introduction of the amendment==
Under the [[Hyde Amendment]], the federal government was prohibited from paying for abortion services. The AHCAA was to provide a "[[Public health insurance option|public option]]", under which individuals could buy subsidized health insurance from a federal agency, and also to set up [[health insurance exchange]]s through which individuals could buy health insurance from private companies, with federal financial assistance. Pro-life groups noted that both the public option and the exchanges allowed federal funds to pay for insurance which could pay for abortions, thus creating a loophole in the Hyde Amendment.
The amendment to close this apparent loophole was submitted in late 2009 by Stupak and Pitts. Other prominent supporters of the amendment included Representatives [[Brad Ellsworth]], [[Marcy Kaptur]], [[Kathy Dahlkemper]], [[Daniel Lipinski]] and [[Chris Smith (New Jersey politician)|Chris Smith]].
==Opposition==
Line 14 ⟶ 12:
The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] joined the opposition to the amendment, saying it "jeopardizes the abortion coverage that millions of women currently have".<ref>[http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/aclu-joins-crucial-lobby-effort-protect-women-s-right-comprehensive-health-care "ACLU Joins Crucial Lobby Effort To Protect Women’s Right To Comprehensive Health Care"] American Civil Liberties Union, December 2, 2009</ref>
According to the [[Guttmacher Institute]], 13% of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies. Some in the debate used this statistic to argue that relatively few women seemed to use private insurance coverage to pay for abortion services, and therefore that absence of coverage would have minimal impact. The Institute responded that arguments based on the statistic alone misrepresented the situation: it omitted both women who paid for the procedure out of pocket, later seeking reimbursement from their insurance company, and those who
An analysis published by policy researchers at the [[George Washington University Medical School]] Department of Health Policy concluded that the Stupak–Pitts Amendment would have the effect of eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions for all women, not just those receiving subsidies or participating in the exchange. The analysis also said the Amendment's restrictions would hinder the insurance industry's ability to market supplemental coverage for abortions, and impact the current ability of individual states to provide such supplemental coverage to [[Medicaid]] recipients. Another issue raised was the possibility of private insurance companies denying coverage for other procedures if a relationship between those procedures and an abortion existed, especially in cases where an abortion was the result of other serious health conditions.<ref>Rosenbaum, Sara, et al., [http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_FED314C4-5056-9D20-3DBE77EF6ABF0FED.pdf "An Analysis of the Implications of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment for Coverage of Medically Indicated Abortions"], The George Washington University Medical Center, School of Public Health & Health Services, Washington, D.C., November 16, 2009</ref>
Catholic lay pro-life activist [[Judie Brown]] of the [[American Life League]] criticized the Stupak–Pitts Amendment for being insufficiently pro-life. She said without the amendment, AHCAA would not have passed in the House, but the [[United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]]' (USCCB) support for the amended bill "gave cover for approximately 40 supposedly pro-life representatives to seemingly support the pro-life cause while also supporting all of the [[Nancy Pelosi|Pelosi]] bill’s major components." Brown said the bill as passed contained "anti-life" "provisions for abortion, contraception, medical 'care' that allows euthanasia, promiscuity-promoting sex education, 'family planning services' provided by organizations such as [[Planned Parenthood]], contradictory and inconsistent language regarding conscience protection and other loopholes." She added, "USCCB made it possible for Catholic Democrats in the House to pay lip service to Church teaching on abortion while voting for a bill that violates Church teachings in several ways, including abortion."<ref>Brown, Judie, [http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2844 "Don’t Be A Faceless Bureaucrat—Say No To Stupak!"], American Life League, November 16, 2009</ref>
==Congressional action==
Line 25 ⟶ 23:
The House approved the Stupak–Pitts amendment on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240–194.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml|title=On agreement to the Stupak of Michigan Amendment (Roll call 884)|author=Office of the Clerk of the US House of Representatives|accessdate=December 18, 2009|date=November 7, 2009}}</ref> Stupak, the lead sponsor, had stated in late September that he wanted a full vote on the House floor on the amendment.<ref>{{cite news|first=Tony|last=Romm|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59045-stupak-threatens-to-block-house-healthcare-bill|title=Stupak threatens to block House healthcare bill|date=September 16, 2009|publisher=''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''}}</ref> After the amendment was adopted, Stupak voted in favor of the amended bill.
Even though the Stupak–Pitts Amendment was part of AHCAA as enacted by the House, its fate remained uncertain in early 2010. In mid-November 2009
In March 2010, Stupak revealed that he would vote for the Senate legislation without the
===Senate action===
| |||