The Stupak-Pitts amendment is relatively short–only twelve lines, eleven if you discount the section header. In fact, here is the entire text, quoted below:
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
It seems pretty simple to me; no federal tax dollars authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 will be used to fund elective abortions. It doesn’t say that women can’t have abortions. It doesn’t say a policy can’t pay for an abortion. It simply says that funds authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 can’t be used for elective abortions.
But house democrats wrote a letter to Momma Pelosi stating the amendment “represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled.” What a great example of hyperbole. Or is it outright misinformation?
First and foremost, the amendment does not target a range of anything. It implicitly targets only elective abortions. Secondly, it doesn’t differ much from the pre-existing Hyde amendment, which already accomplishes the same thing (which would change if H.R. 3962 is passed into law without the Stupak-Pitts amendment).
So far I can’t find any specific examples of how Stupak-Pitts would restrict women’s ability to access even a small range of reproductive health services. Where in its 95 words does Stupak-Pitts reach much further than the Hyde amendment, as Planned Parenthood asserts? Inquiring minds want to know.
Of course, Planned Parenthood advanced the argument that abortions are a form of birth control and this amendment would make that option too expensive for women:
The Stupak/Pitts amendment would purportedly allow women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. But such abortion riders do not exist because women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies…
Abortion is not an option simply because you ‘didn’t intend to become pregnant.’ If you really, really don’t intend to become pregnant, than you really, really ensure you have protection…multiple forms if you’re that serious and even abstinence if you’re hard-core.
The bottom line is that even though I’m pro-choice from a libertarian point of view, I don’t want my tax dollars funding abortions that are simply a means of birth control. For that reason, even though I don’t support H.R. 3962 as a whole, I support the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
Get Involved
- Tweet your support
- Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
- Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter
Contact the Administration and your representatives
Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.
To learn more
- Visit CATO on health care reform
- Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
- Read the similar posts listed below
Similar Posts:
- The Stupak Amendment
- My Take On Abortion
- Health Care Is A Commodity, Not A Right
- Pelosi’s Health Care Reform Bill Against Tort Reform
- Kucinich Petitions For Health Care As A Right
- Health Care Reform; A Primary Care Physician’s Perspective
- More Oily Language
- Lobbyists Are Driving Health Care Reform
- Health Care Reform Should Be Left To The Individual States
- My Recommendations To My Congresswoman