Responding to Senator Stabenow's Health Care Response

Some prolife individuals in Michigan who have contacted Senator Debbie Stabenow with their concerns about abortion funding in health care reform legislation have received the following reply from Senator Stabenow's office:

"Abortion: The Finance Committee's health insurance reform bill does not change existing federal law, which already prohibits using federal money for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. To protect this rule, insurance plans in the new health exchanges must keep private funds separate from any federal subsidized assistance. "

This response from Senator Stabenow's office is misleading on a few counts.  First, it refers to the Finance Committee's health insurance reform bill.  That bill (sponsored by Senator Max Baucus) is no longer being debating in the U.S. Senate.  The bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate is a different bill, sponsored by Senator Harry Reid. 

Second, the current health care reform bill is designed to change existing law rather drastically. It creates a new public insurance exchange where insurance companies can offer their policies and many people would be able to receive federally-subsidized health insurance. This means that plans in the government exchange will be cheaper for most individuals because the government will be paying for a portion of the plan. The way the current legislation is written, many federally-subsidized health insurance plans will cover abortion.   Legislators in favor of legal abortion claim the legislation is "abortion-neutral" because abortions would be paid for with money from individuals' premiums. The problem is that the federal government is subsidizing the plans, making the premiums cheaper. This is an accounting scheme where federal funds make health insurance coverage (including abortion coverage) cheaper and easier to obtain.  Individuals who would receive federal subsidies for health care insurance would be receiving federal funds (a.k.a. your tax dollars).  The premiums are also considered federal funds because they would be paid to the federal government, who would then pay insurance companies who offer abortion coverage. 

The Stupak amendment (which is included in the House version of health care reform) would prevent this abortion funding by following principles in federal laws and prohibiting plans in the federally-subsidized health insurance program from including abortion coverage in plans for individuals who would receive federally subsidized plans.

Thirdly, the law which prohibits using federal money for abortion services is the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is included in appropriations bills for Medicaid, meaning that it only relates to Medicaid, not the new, public health insurance plan.

Below is a sample response individuals can use to respond to Senator Stabenow's response:

"The current bill being debated in the U.S. Senate would use federal funds via subsidies to pay for elective abortion in the public option.  This is unacceptable."