Blogs Comment On Coakley Victory, Nelson Amendment, Incarcerated Pregnant Women

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Pregnant, in Prison and Denied Care," Rachel Roth, The Nation: In 2009, "incarcerated women and their allies have achieved a remarkable string of victories against inhumane treatment, ... send[ing] a strong signal to the rest of the country to stop subjecting women to [the] dangerous and degrading practice" of shackling pregnant prisoners during childbirth, Roth writes. However, the "pain and humiliation they endure" during childbirth "likely caps months of difficulty from being pregnant behind bars, months without adequate prenatal care or nutrition, or even basics like a bed to sleep on or clothes to accommodate their changing shape," Roth continues, adding that the "denial of appropriate care to pregnant women is part and parcel of the general state of medical neglect in prisons" in the U.S. She writes, "Until elected officials mandate" reporting of pregnancy outcomes in prisons, "we will have to rely on the efforts of imprisoned women, journalists, human rights investigators, researchers, lawyers and advocates to document the reality of life for pregnant women inside prison walls" (Roth, The Nation, 12/10).

~ "Deconstructing Harry," Robert Costa, National Review: In an entry examining 10 things "to watch in the Senate health care debate," Costa writes that there are several questions surrounding abortion coverage and the outcome of the final vote on the bill, including whether Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will "play hardball and push for his amendment's language to be included in the bill via" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) manager's amendment. Costa writes that his "prediction" is that "Nelson talks about walking away, only to be cajoled back" by Reid, who "knows how to sweeten pots" (Costa, National Review, 12/10).

~ "Does Ireland's Abortion Law Violate Human Rights?" Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily: The outcome of a "potentially landmark" case before the European Court of Human Rights "may very well end up changing abortion law in Ireland, ... may also affect abortion law in other parts of Europe" and "might well impinge on American jurisprudence domestically," Lloyd writes. The case challenges abortion laws in Ireland, a country that Lloyd says "has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world." Ireland outlawed abortion in 1861, and subsequent laws allow life sentences for women who undergo the procedure, as well as maintain that fetuses have explicit rights beginning at contraception, according to Lloyd. The lawsuit alleges that Irish laws violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees rights to life and privacy, and also prohibits torture and discrimination. "If the court rules in favor of the three women, this would establish a new minimum degree of protection to which a woman seeking an abortion would be entitled under the European Convention," Lloyd writes, adding that the ruling could be binding to all member states, including nations with very strict abortion laws (Lloyd, Politics Daily, 12/10).














~ "Stupak's NYT Op-Ed: Congresswoman Capps Responds," Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), RH Reality Check: Capps counters assertions made by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in a New York Times opinion piece on Dec. 9. Stupak in the opinion piece examines whether an amendment he sponsored with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that restricts access to abortion services is consistent with current law and public opinion. 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," Capps writes, adding that an amendment she sponsored would have barred federal funding for abortions but allowed plans offered in proposed insurance exchanges to fund abortions using private money from premiums. Allowing insurers to segregate federal and private funding would be consistent with current laws that permit churches and military contractors to do the same, Capps writes. Capps also cites recent polls showing that 54% of U.S. residents oppose reform plans that would bar private insurers from covering abortion and that 52% of voters "support the 'Capps compromise'" (Capps, RH Reality Check, 12/10).

~ "Nelson Amendment Fails, but More Obstacles Remain for Pro-Choicers," Jessica Grose, Double X's "XX Factor": "On the surface," the defeat of an amendment to the Senate's health care reform bill (HR 3590) sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) that mirrors language in the Stupak amendment "seems like a victory for pro-choice forces in the Senate," Grose writes. However, she adds that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated that "the fight is not over." To placate Nelson, who has said he would filibuster the bill if his language is not adopted by the Senate, Reid has indicated that he would consider including different language that restricts abortion rights. This "is not the only disappointing news for women's health" because neither the Senate bill nor the House (HR 3962) bill requires coverage of all components of a typical gynecological "well visit," according to Grose. She concludes, "If essential care isn't part of a health insurance reform, getting the bill passed is a pyrrhic victory for women at best" (Grose, "XX Factor," Double X, 12/9).

~ "Five Unresolved Questions on Abortion in Health Care Debate," Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report's "God & Country": Gilgoff addresses five lingering questions concerning the progress of health reform. First, Gilgoff questions whether a Democratic senator who opposes abortion rights -- Sens. Robert Casey (Pa.) or Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- will "withhold a cloture vote on the Senate health care bill because it lacks a strict ban on federal dollars for abortions." Next, he wonders whether the House would approve a bill that lacks "a sweeping Stupak-Pitts ban on federal dollars available to health care plans that offer abortion coverage." Third, Gilgoff considers whether the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has enough power to prevent passage of a reform bill that omits the Stupak-Pitts language. Fourth, Gilgoff asks whether "segregating federal money from personal premiums in funding abortion coverage [constitutes] a ban on federally funded abortion" in a government-managed insurance plan. Finally, he wonders whether a compromise will emerge that goes beyond the Capps plan's segregation of private and federal funding for abortion services but "stops short of preventing government-subsidized plans from covering the procedure" (Gilgoff, "God & Country," U.S. News & World Report, 12/9).

~ "Coakley Wins, Nelson Loses: A Victory for Women," Ellen Malcolm, Politics Daily: Women "certainly understand" the concept of "trying to change the world for the better, periodically celebrating small victories, when all of the sudden a convergence of events creates huge and significant change," Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, writes. For example, Dec. 8 marked "a convergence of events [that] resulted in tremendous victories for women," including Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley winning the U.S. Senate Democratic primary and the defeat of Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) amendment, which would have banned federally subsidized insurance plans from covering abortion services. Malcolm adds, "One victory shows women know how to win. One victory shows why women need to win." The events on Dec. 8 make "it clear that women see the world differently than men" and that their "perspectives need to be represented in our representative democracy," Malcolm writes, adding, "When we succeed in electing more women" like Coakley, abortion-rights opponents "won't have the power to define, create or expand the 'status quo' for women" (Malcolm, Politics Daily, 12/11).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.