Prolonged Eye Contact

Pro-choice Comic

safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife:

“Here is a short comic about the sneaky strategies used by the anti-abortion movement in the UK…based on the excellent investigation from Education for Choice, partially published on the Guardian last Summer.”

*Pregnant people, not just cis women.

I didn’t know the UK also had CPCs akin to those in the United States. I’m glad there are people committed to countering and exposing their lies, though.

(via stfuprolife)

Does Barack Obama's health care bill include $1 abortions? [FALSE]

The administration has issued rules for “$1 abortions in ObamaCare” and “requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay” an abortion premium.

—Bloggers on Monday, March 12th, 2012 in blog posts and links on the Internet

Many readers have asked us to review a recent claim reverberating around the Internet that stems from an article posted on an anti-abortion website, lifenews.com. The March 12, 2012, article is titled, “Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare.”

Referring to a rule recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, lifenews.com published the following:

“It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law. Nestled within the ‘individual mandate’ in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government-approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an ‘abortion premium mandate.’ This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.”

We’ll look at whether the Obama administration has issued rules for “$1 abortions in ObamaCare” and required “all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.” (We emailed lifenews.com but did not hear back.)

As we’ve noted before, abortion has been a thorny issue in the process of drafting and enacting a health care law from the beginning.

Since 1976, the federal government has been guided by the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in peril. Due to that amendment — which must be renewed every year — abortion services are not provided in health care plans offered to federal employees and for active and retired military.

But the health care reform bill set up health care “exchanges” in which private insurance companies can compete for the business of buyers who do not get their insurance through an employer. The question became: Should private companies be allowed to offer abortion coverage (as most already do) when operating through the exchanges? And what if the people buying policies are getting government subsidies to buy insurance?

The final rules from HHS don’t dramatically alter the approach taken by the law itself.

For starters, when the exchanges begin operating in 2014, some states will ban all abortion coverage entirely for any plan selling on that state’s exchange. Doing so is allowed by a state “opt-out” clause that was passed as part of the health care law. According to the National Right to Life Committee, 15 states have passed such laws so far, with other legislatures considering similar measures.

Beyond that, every state must offer at least one plan on its exchange that doesn’t cover abortion, and that plan will include the same minimum benefit package for non-abortion services that is required of every other plan sold on the exchanges. In addition, no private insurer will be forced to cover abortion; doing so will be their choice, at least in states that choose to allow it.

However, unless and until opt-out laws are passed by the other 35 states, insurers will be allowed to sell policies on the exchanges that include abortion coverage. To allow this yet still abide by the Hyde Amendment, sponsors of the bill drafted a special procedure to differentiate between dollars spent on abortion coverage and dollars spent for everything else. (Anti-abortion advocates have consistently argued that the approach doesn’t offer strong enough protections to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. More on that later.)

Any insurer offering a plan on the exchange that includes abortion coverage must set up two separate accounts for dollars received and paid. One account would hold money that is used to pay for abortion services (except for abortions that are the result of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother, which may be paid for under the Hyde Amendment). The other account would hold money that is used to pay for everything else.

All federal dollars, such as federal subsidies received by purchasers on the exchange whose incomes are low enough to qualify for them, would be deposited in the non-abortion account. Most of the premiums paid by the plan’s beneficiaries would also go into this account, but a fraction of individual premium payments would be sent to the abortion account, so that enough money is available to pay for claims submitted by beneficiaries for abortion services.

The Obama administration has issued rules for “$1 abortions in ObamaCare”

So where does that $1figure come from?

HHS has determined the minimum amount that insurers offering plans that include abortion must allocate per beneficiary into this abortion account. An insurer “may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month,” HHS said.

That’s where it comes from. But what does it mean?

It means that a plan cannot contribute less than $1of premiums per month per beneficiary into the abortion fund. That’s all. It doesn’t mean that abortions will cost one dollar — which seems an obvious interpretation of the phrase “$1 abortions in ObamaCare.” Rather, it’s a way of filling the account so that there’s enough money to pay abortion providers for their services. The actual amount per enrollee per month may be a lot higher, depending on what the insurer’s actuaries determine.

So the claim of “$1 abortions” is ridiculously inaccurate. What about the second claim?

The law “requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.”

This claim echoes many made by anti-abortion advocates since the law was first proposed. Critics argue that the health care law’s protections against taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortions are inadequate.

“The most objectionable aspect is that it is a smokescreen intended to conceal the new and massive federal subsidies (‘tax credits’) to health plans that cover abortion on demand — a sharp break from decades of federal policy,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. “Under Medicaid and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, for example, federal funds do not go to plans that cover elective abortions.”

But let’s parse the lifenews.com statement closely.

For starters, it refers to “all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion services” — but the issue at hand actually affects only persons who purchased insurance from the exchanges. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2018, there will be 24 million people buying insurance through the exchanges, compared to 184 million people with either employer-provided insurance or individually purchased insurance outside the exchanges.

So the maximum number of people theoretically affected by this concern is 12 percent of private-insurance beneficiaries in 2018. And that number could decline substantially once you subtract residents of the 15 states (or more) that bar any abortion coverage in exchange-sold policies, and after you subtract those individuals that purchase one of the non-abortion options required to be offered by the exchanges. This group falls well short of “all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.”

But even this is a side issue. We have ruled in the past that the health care law does not provide federal funding for abortion. Our conclusion was that even if you have the opportunity to buy abortion coverage on the exchanges — and Americans in many states won’t have that option — you won’t be forced to buy such coverage. Non-abortion options will always be available on the exchanges, and tax dollars sent to those plans through federal subsidies will be placed in accounts walled off from accounts used to pay for abortion services.

This all means that anyone purchasing a plan with abortion coverage will be be doing so by choice and paying for it personally.

On March 16, 2012, Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, and his colleague, senior legislative counsel Susan T. Muskett, raised an issue about the way the law is worded. They wrote that “if a health plan covers abortion, the rule forbids the plan from calling attention to that fact in any of its advertising or explanatory materials. The disclosure of abortion coverage can be provided ‘only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment.’ This provision seems designed for no other purpose than to ensure that many people who would not deliberately sign up for abortion-covering plans will do so inadvertently.”

The text of the law does include this line: “A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of (elective abortion) shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.”

This use of the word “only” does seem to raise the risk that a plan’s abortion provisions won’t be fully transparent to the buyer. But we think the law does ensure disclosure for any potential purchaser who is paying attention.

HHS describes the disclosure summary in question as something akin to the nutritional labels on food — a standardized form that will allow consumers to easily compare one plan’s features to another’s before they buy.

“Before choosing a health plan, consumers will know whether the plan covers these services,” said HHS spokeswoman Erin Shields.

Our ruling

The claim that the Obama administration has issued rules for “$1 abortions in ObamaCare” is ridiculous; the administration has simply set a floor for how much money per month of the premiums paid by those who have chosen plans that include abortion must be placed in a segregated account in order to make sure that there’s enough money available to pay for abortion services incurred by people enrolled in that plan.

The bigger charge — that the Obama health care law “requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion” — is also incorrect.

The provision in question only affects people who purchase insurance plans that cover abortion and who do so on the exchanges — a much narrower group than the claim suggests. And people who make such purchases will be paying their private dollars into abortion coverage accounts voluntarily. Despite some puzzling wording, ultimately the law allows for full disclosure of its abortion rules at the most obvious time, when someone is signing up for coverage. On balance, we rate this claim False.

Right-Wing Media Helps Health Reform Law Opponents Invent "$1 Abortions"

Right-wing media are pointing to final regulations implementing health care reform legislation to revive long discredited myths about abortion coverage.

In early March 2012, the federal Department of Health and Human Services finalized a number of regulations implementing portions of the Affordable Care Act. One of the regulations implemented a provision requiring that insurance companies that choose to provide coverage for abortion through the health care exchanges ensure that federal money is not used to provide abortions. The regulations further require insurers to collect an additional abortion coverage fee from plan enrollees who choose a plan that covers abortion.

After the rules were announced, The Fox Nation excerpted a LifeNews.com piece under the false headline: “$1 Abortions in Obamacare.” And Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the regulation “establishes state health care exchanges under Obamacare including an abortion premium mandate. You now, because of this implementation of the rule, you now will be forced to pay a dollar a month to cover abortion on your insurance policy.” Limbaugh also claimed that the fee “is coming out of your pocket, one way or the other.”

None of this is true. There are no “$1 abortions” in the Affordable Care Act. There are also no requirements that everyone pay a fee for abortion coverage; indeed, people always have the choice of picking a plan that doesn’t cover abortion at all.

The Falsehood That Everyone “Will Be Forced To Pay A Dollar A Month To Cover Abortion On Your Insurance Policy”

Limbaugh’s claim that “you now will be forced to pay a dollar a month to cover abortion on your insurance policy,” is simply not true.

The reason that the surcharge for abortion coverage exists at all is to make sure that federal money is not spent on abortion. Federal law bans the use of any federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the woman is in danger. The Affordable Care Act maintains that ban. Plans that cover abortion must charge enrollees an additional fee for abortion and keep those funds separate to ensure that no federal money is paid for abortion.

Moreover, people do not even have to choose a plan that covers abortion. The Affordable Care Act specifically says that in any health care exchanges that are established, there must be “at least one … plan that does not provide coverage” for abortions. Therefore, a person who receives insurance through the exchanges can choose either a plan that covers abortion or one that does not. If the person chooses a plan that does not cover abortion, he or she does not pay a surcharge for abortion. Again, the regulations do nothing to change this provision. 

Right-Wing Invents “$1 Abortions”

With respect to the right-wing media’s claim about the impact of the Affordable Care Act on how much abortions cost, the Affordable Care Act does not set a price for abortions. Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act states that insurance plans can cover abortions in cases of rape and incest and in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.

If an insurance plan chooses to cover abortion in other situations as well, it must charge an additional fee for this coverage. The Health and Human Services secretary determines the cost of this fee based “an average actuarial basis” for the entire population covered. But the cost of this fee may not take into account any cost savings that result from abortions, such as those resulting from a decrease in “prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care.” No matter what the actuarial estimates are, the fee shall not be “less than $1 per enrollee, per month.” The regulations do nothing to change this provision.

In other words, private insurance companies that choose to cover abortions must overestimate the costs of abortion (since they are not allowed to take into account any cost reductions that result from abortion coverage). If this overestimate turns out to be less than $1 per month per enrollee, insurers still must charge enrollees $1 per month.

_______________________________________

*Pregnant people, not just cis women.

ALL ABORTION OPPOSERS: SIGN THIS PETITION

alittlepainalittlepleasure:

Dear President Obama,

I am appalled at your Obamacare mandate that forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

Today, you revised your mandate in a way that is just as offensive.

Your revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage of abortion-causing drugs at no cost.
Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug - only now insurance companies will offer them at no charge.
This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drug.

I oppose this revised pro-abortion mandate and urge you to overturn it immediately.

Sincerely,


(After signing this petition, please cut and paste the text of it and send it to Obama by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.)

[warning: all links are, unfortunately, cis-centric]

It’s pretty embarrassing that 6,547 people are so misinformed they signed this piece of drivel. For those interested in the truth:

Plan B (aka the morning-after pill) and Ella, which are classified as emergency contraception, do not cause abortions. If you look at the science into EC it’s very clear on the subject: there are no post-fertilization effects caused by these medications, so even if you go against virtually the entire scientific and medical communities and define pregnancy as fertilization rather than implantation, emergency contraception is still not abortion.

the administration’s guidance does not include drugs that can induce abortions. As the rule explains that insurers and employers must cover “Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force)” and “the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” The contraception language is included in the HRSA guidelines, it reads: “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” Those include:

Male Condom, Female Condom, Diaphragm with Spermicide, Sponge with Spermicide, Cervical Cap with Spermicide, Spermicide Alone, Oral Contraceptives (a.k.a. “the pill”), Patch, Vaginal Contraceptive Ring, Shot/Injection, Emergency Contraceptives, IUD, Implantable Rod, Vasectomy, Transcervical Surgical Sterilization Implant for women

These methods act to “prevent pregnancy before, and only before, fertilization occurs.” Emergency Contraceptives like Plan B — which Murphy attempted to paint as an “abortion pill”– halts the union of sperm and oocyte and inhibits ovulation. It does not work after fertilization.

Also see:

• Mechanism of Action of Emergency Contraceptive Pills
• Planned Parenthood: The Difference Between Emergency Contraception and Medication Abortion
• Letter to Kathleen Sebelius: Comments on CMS-9992-IFC2, Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• Guttmacher: Past Due: Emergency Contraception In U.S Reproductive Health Programs Overseas

Churches were always exempt from the rule, and with the revised mandate religious employers with objections do not have to offer the coverage or pay for it. Their employees will receive the coverage from the insurance company (a third party) directly at no cost. It’s really pretty simple. Birth control existing and the fact that your employees are using it doesn’t infringe on your freedom of religion. However, not covering contraception when your plans cover other prescription medications has been shown to violate Title VII (the Civil Rights Act of 1964). 

The mandate is not unconstitutional nor does it infringe on your freedom of religion. Getting involved in the healthcare of your secular employees, on the other hand, is an infringement on their rights. Further, conscience protections that are virtually the same as Obama’s have been upheld in court.

Honestly, you really should know the intricacies of an issue before signing petitions against something that will positively affect the lives and health of a significant portion of the country.

Further Reading:

• Text of the 2011 mandate [also see: here, here, here, here]
• Final rule for mandate [after religious exemptions were debated] and the prior interim final rule
• IOM’s July 2011 report “Clinical Preventative Services for Women: Closing the Gaps” [report brief here, testimony before House Judiciary Committee here, testimony before House Oversight & Government Reform Committee here]
• Press release: IOM report recommends 8 additional preventative health services to promote women’s health [also here]
• HHS press release
• Fact sheet: women’s preventative services and religious institutions
• Covered preventative services under ACA for women
• Coverage guidelines for women’s preventative services [also here]
• Women and the Affordable Care Act
• Pregnant women and the ACA
• Women’s preventative health services in the new health care law: FAQ
• Contraceptive coverage “accommodation” of religiously-affiliated employers: FAQ
• Access to preventative health care for women in the new health care law: FAQ
• Covering prescription contraceptives in employee health plans: how this coverage saves money
• Sampling of Catholic-affiliated institutions that provide contraceptive coverage
• Title VII requires covered employers to provide contraceptive coverage
• Amicus Brief, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., v. State of Florida, et al.
• Letter to the President opposing the religious employer exemption
• Contraception mandate doesn’t include abortifacients
• Mandate isn’t unconstitutional
• Majority of Pill users take them for non-contraceptive purposes
• Birth control is medical care
• 5 reasons why the contraceptive coverage guarantee is so important
• Benefits and savings from contraception coverage [also here]
• The White House explains its contraceptives compromise
• Obama’s contraception rule a matter of life-altering care for some
• Obama’s conscience protection clause has been upheld in court
• Large Catholic institutions offered contraception even before required to do so [also here]
• Catholic hospitals can’t discriminate based on sex in hiring, shouldn’t discriminate based on sex in coverage
• Nation’s largest Catholic university offers a contraceptive benefit
• Majority of Catholics support requiring health plans to provide contraception
• Insurance coverage of contraceptives [also here]
• Obama and the Bishops: Is the White House Caving on Birth Control Coverage?
• Expand Access, Not Exemptions
• Actual Costs of Birth Control
• Catholic groups fight contraceptive rule, but many already offer coverage
• Major mainstream religious leaders support White House on contraceptive coverage in health reform
• Health Insurance Coverage a Courtesy? No, It’s Your—And My—Wages

Now there’s no excuse for misrepresenting this issue ever again.

Michele Bachmann Thinks Birth-Control Rule Will Lead to a One-Child Policy

A story illustrating the obstacles people would face in states with 72 hour waiting periods prior to an abortion (2011)

[Waiting periods would affect all pregnant people, not just cis women.]

Researchers debunk study linking abortions to mental health issues

safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife:

“Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and The Guttmacher Institute debunked a 2009 study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research linking abortions to mental health issues.

In a press release Monday morning, the editor of the journal agreed with the new analysis that found fundamental analytical errors in the study. UCSF’s Julia Steinberg and Guttmacher’s Lawrence Finer sent the editor a letter in the March 2012 edition of the journal, chastising the original study’s top figure, Priscilla Coleman, and her colleagues’ work for fundamental analytical errors.

“This is not a scholarly difference of opinion, their facts were flatly wrong,” Steinberg said. “This was an abuse of the scientific process to reach conclusions that are not supported by the data. The shifting explanations and misleading statements that they offered over the past two years served to mask their serious methodological errors.”

The press release also slammed Coleman’s work, citing that she chose to draw conclusions despite not distinguishing “between mental health outcomes that occurred before abortions and those that occurred afterward.”

Anti-abortion activists have cited Coleman’s research as helping in their propaganda, with the faulty information also spread by federally and state-funded crisis pregnancy centers.”

shocking…

(via ladyatheist)