On Wednesday, December 9th, the New York Times published an op-ed by Congressman Bart Stupak in which he makes misleading claims about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House Health Care Reform bill. Here, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), author of the Capps Amendment, provides a reality check to the claims in that op-ed.

Stupak

Claim: Our amendment maintains current law, which says that

there should be no federal financing for abortion.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes well

beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is in no way

the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment its proponents claim. It dramatically

restricts consumers’ ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that

include coverage for abortion services in the health exchange. In

contrast the Capps Amendment, which was included in the original version of the

House bill, continued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services,

but did so without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical

procedure when it is paid for with private funds. Reputable

third parties, like a recent study from George Washington University, have

found that the Stupak–Pitts Amendment would

restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for entirely with

private funds.

Stupak

Claim: Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies

will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover

abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion

services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with

their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive

federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to

cover abortions.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

Reality: There is nothing in the

Stupak-Pitts Amendment to ensure that riders are available or affordable to

individuals purchasing coverage in the Exchange. There is no

evidence that insurance companies actually offer such riders in the five states

that currently require women to purchase a separate rider for abortion

coverage. It is not practical to expect women to plan ahead for an

unintended pregnancy, or a pregnancy that goes terribly wrong, by purchasing a

supplemental rider. Furthermore, if only women of childbearing age

purchase such a rider then the premium for the rider will likely cost almost as

much as the service.

Stupak

Claim: Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that

it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the

private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.

Reality: It is highly unlikely that

any insurance plan is going to go through the pain staking process of setting

up two separate plans —one with abortion services offered and one without – to

cater to less than 20% of the Exchange participants who are allowed to buy

plans that include abortion services. As noted

by Robert Laszewski, consultant to the insurance industry, in a recent

interview with NPR, it wouldn’t make any business sense to offer a plan

that would only be available to such a small number of potential customers.

A

recent report by George Washington University similarly concluded that the

effect of the Stupak amendment would “militate against the creation of a

supplemental coverage market.” The argument

that this amendment won’t restrict access for women who are paying for

insurance entirely out of their own pockets is false.

Stupak

Claim: The language in our amendment is completely consistent

with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done

nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage.

There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly

create undue hardship for the insurance industry — or for those who wish to use

their private insurance to pay for an abortion.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment

goes well beyond current law by contracting access to abortion services and is

in no way the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment its proponents claim. The Hyde Amendment

prohibits federal funding for abortion in Medicaid programs except in

cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the women, but it allows

states to use their own funds to pay for abortions in other cases.

Applying this same principle, the Capps Amendment, would have prohibited federal

funding to pay directly for abortions in insurance plans in the Exchange,

but would allow plans to pay for these services using private funding from

patient premiums. Just as churches and military contractors are able to

segregate federal funds from other sources of funding, insurance companies can

do the same.

Stupak

Claim: Given that insurance companies are able to offer

separate plans with and without abortion coverage now, it seems likely that

they would be able to continue to do so on the newly established health

insurance exchange.

Reality: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment severely limits private plans’

ability to cover abortions. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prohibit

any abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions within the public option and any plans

sold in the Exchange to individuals who receive affordability credits.

Although insurance companies are permitted to offer plans that cover abortion

to individuals who do not receive affordability credits, they would only be able

to do so if they offered two nearly identical plans with the only difference

being coverage and exclusion of abortion services. Furthermore health

insurance companies would be unlikely to even offer a plan that does receive

any funding from affordability credits because the risk pool would be too

small. In effect, this ensures there will not be any private plans

covering abortion available to individuals and small businesses that purchase

health insurance in the new Exchange.

Stupak Claim: It is also disingenuous

to argue (as some have) that it would be a hardship for insurance companies to

provide plans with and without abortion coverage — when the health care bill as

introduced in the House and Senate mandated exactly that. Under language

suggested by Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, the new

insurance exchange would be required to provide at least one plan that covers

abortion and one plan that does not. If offering separate abortion-free plans

in this way was acceptable under the Capps language (which has been endorsed by

abortion-rights groups), then it should also be acceptable under the

Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts Amendment.

Reality: Under the Capps language

the Exchange would have to ensure that there is at least one plan that does not

include abortion services and one that does. These plans could be

offered by the same company or different companies, so long as consumers were

offered at least one of each option. In contrast the Stupak-Pitts

Amendment requires private plans that want to offer a comprehensive plan

including abortion services – and most private plans currently do offer

comprehensive plans – they would have to offer an identical plan that does not

include abortion services. So if Blue Cross Blue Shield wanted to

offer a comprehensive plan they would also have to offer an identical plan

without those services. According

to insurance industry consultants like Robert Laszewski it wouldn’t make

any business sense to offer a plan that would only be available to such a small

number of potential customers (since less than 20 percent of the exchange

customers would even be allowed to purchase a comprehensive plan). And

that is why anyone in the Exchange – even those paying for insurance completely

on their own – wouldn’t have access to abortion coverage. The argument

that this amendment won’t restrict access for women who are paying for insurance

entirely out of their own pockets is false.

Stupak

Claim: While many accusations have been thrown around in recent

months, the intent behind our amendment is simple and clear: to continue

current law, which says that there should be no federal financing of abortions.

Our intent was not to change, add or take anything away from federal law.

Reality: Again, the

Stupak-Pitts Amendment goes well beyond current law by contracting access to

abortion services and is in no way the simple extension of the Hyde Amendment

its proponents claim. Regardless of intent, the amendment does dramatically restrict

consumers’ ability to purchase comprehensive health plans that include coverage

for abortion services in the health exchange. In contrast the Capps Amendment

continued the prohibition of federal funding of abortion services, but did so

without restricting insurance coverage of this legal medical procedure when it

is paid for with private funds. Reputable third parties, like a recent

study from George Washington University, have found that the Stupak-Pitts

Amendment would restrict coverage of abortion services even when paid for

entirely with private funds.

Stupak

Claim: This goal is consistent with the opinion of a majority

of Americans. Recent CNN and Washington Post-ABC News polls found that 61

percent of Americans do not want taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. And

while the Senate voted down a similar amendment on Tuesday, I’m hopeful that

the spirit of our legislation will make it into the final bill.

Reality: The Capps language is consistent with both

current law and public opinion because it explicitly prohibits federal funding

for abortion services except those allowed by the Hyde Amendment: rape,

incest, and to protect the life of the woman. Furthermore, recent polling

conducted by the Mellman Group found that:

54%

of voters would oppose a health care reform plan that prevented private

insurance plans from covering abortion.

56% of voters believe

that those who receive partial subsidies should be able to buy plans that

cover abortion – surpassing those who oppose this choice by a 20 point

margin.

52% of voters support

the “Capps compromise,” which would prohibit federal dollars, including

partial subsidies, from being used to pay for abortions, though abortions

could be paid using private funds generated by patients’ premiums.

47% agreed that

“Political differences should not prevent us from moving forward on an

otherwise good healthcare reform plan.”

As

pollster Mark Mellman noted a column in The Hill recently,

“Americans do not want reform to be an excuse for tightening restrictions on

abortion or for taking away health coverage millions already have. Nor do they

want an abortion debate to stop reform. Voters want an abortion-neutral

healthcare reform.”