Read @ Washington Times

Pro-choice activist spoiling for a fight

By Cheryl Wetzstein

The Washington Times

Pro-choice advocates have been "forced … into a corner" by legislative maneuvering and should fight to "regain momentum," a Guttmacher Institute official says in a rally-the-troops article.

"Antiabortion advocates have unveiled a radical agenda aimed at eliminating abortion  coverage from any health insurance plan that in any way touches a public dollar, whether directly or even indirectly, under the tax code," said Susan A. Cohen, director of government affairs for the Guttmacher Institute.

This "goes far beyond the Hyde amendment," and advocates will need to fight harder to ensure that abortion is a covered health care service under the federal government's Medicaid program, in state health care "exchanges" and in private insurance policies, she said in an analysis in the fall 2010 issue of the Guttmacher Policy Review.

Pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser said that if Ms. Cohen accuses the pro-life movement of having a strategy to disconnect abortion from taxpayer funds, "I plead guilty. She is right."

[SNIP]

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, introduced this summer by veteran pro-life leader Mr. Smith and 183 co-sponsors, will be used to "demagogue against abortion" in health care, Ms. Cohen predicted.

Other pro-choice groups have denounced the Smith bill.

The Smith bill "reaches even further than Hyde," said the Center for Reproductive Rights, referring to the Hyde amendment, a federal rider that since 1976 has disallowed direct federal spending on most abortions.

"Because of the Hyde amendment, more than 1 million women have been denied the ability to make their own decisions about bringing a child into the world," Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, said in a Center for
Reproductive Rights report on how the Hyde amendment harms lower-income women.

If the federal Medicaid program was blocked from paying for any abortions, Ms. Poggi added, her network — which raises $3 million a year to help 21,000 lower-income women pay for their abortions — couldn't possibly handle "the enormous need" that would be created.

The Smith bill goes into "uncharted territory," Ms. Cohen said in her Guttmacher article: It would prevent employers from taking a tax deduction for insurance plans that include abortion coverage, disallow people to use pretax dollars to pay insurance premiums with abortion coverage or to pay for abortions under a flexible health spending
account.

Even abortion foes should be able to see that these represent a "strained view" of government "funding," Ms. Cohen wrote. "But with the Democratic Party on the run leading up to the midterm elections and the disinformation campaign against the health care law being used as a rallying tool on the right, it is not surprising that antiabortion activists feel emboldened."

In fact, the Smith bill is so sweeping, Ms. Cohen added, that it could be a "a clear political, communications and legal road map" for the anti-abortion movement.

Indeed, the Smith bill will be "the first order of business," said Ms. Dannenfelser, noting that the House Republicans' "Pledge to America" promised to "establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion," and to "enact into law conscience protections for health care providers, including doctors, nurses, and hospitals."

The Smith bill does both those things, Ms. Dannenfelser said.

Ms. Cohen also said in her Guttmacher article that abortion battles will break out in state legislatures and even in private insurance companies.

Five states — Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee — have banned abortion coverage in state health exchange plans, even though those exchanges won't be operational until 2014.

"We anticipate more of these [exchange ban] bills will be introduced in 2011," said Dionne Scott, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which recently issued a summary of 2010 state legislative trends on abortion.

Given such negative pushback, it is "an open question" whether insurers will even attempt to offer abortion coverage, Ms. Cohen said.

[SNIP]

Full 3-page article @ Washington Times
=============================

As the GOP/Tea Party is making all out pull for ultimate conservatism, this is the agenda. Their conservative fiscal agenda does not have the needed strength in job creation plans; there is push for debt reduction (mainly reduction of government jobs and government spend) which would add further to unemployment.  The Smith Bill  though actually does have the strength to make Roe v. Wade effectively non-existent FOR THE POOR PEOPLE.

If the Smith Bill goes into effect, any expense for an abortion rider will not be deductive from your income in calculating income tax.

There is another thing that is not been made aware of. Since parents would have kids in THEIR insurance until age 26, parents would have to get abortion coverage rider on their insurance.   Parents may decide insurance based on what THEY think are their needs and the kids may be left without the rider coverage. 

Tell your congressperson you want to have the right to choose for yourself and for kids so they can take care of their health under all such highly foreseeable circumstances.

Anyone know the bill number for "the Smith Bill"?


Edit:
Ok. I found it:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5939/show

H.R.5939 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Here is the press release on House Rep. Chris Smith's website:
New Bill Would Make Restrictions on Public Funding of Abortions Permanent


Here is the 8-page document of the bill H.R.5939.


You can keep an eye on the status of the bill in www.thomas.gov click on Bill number, type "H.R.5939" in the search blox and click on SEARCH.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 25th of October 2010 10:04:07 AM