This morning, BlogHer's Morra Aarons Mele interviewed Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about health care reform. BlogHer landed the interview late last week and then had to get the word out in the middle of Snowpocalypse 2009. I'm really impressed that Secretary Sebelius kept the scheduled interview at 9:30am, even though the federal government was officially closed today because of the Winter storm.
You can see all of the questions posed by BlogHer members on the BlogHer website, including my own question regarding restricting access to abortion. If you scroll down a bit after my comment, check out the comment by Cyn. I think she asked the question far more thoroughly, and more coherently, than I did!
Secretary Sebelius answers my question, in part, at about 3:20.
Here is my question/comment in full:
I'm concerned about the possibility that several states will pass mini-Stupak amendments, severely restricting abortion access for many women.
It seems that the media, and even most politicians, have focused solely on the affect Stupak (on the national or state level) would have on optional abortions. What seems to be missing from this debate is any knoweldge about medically necessary abortions - otherwise known as a D&C. D&C's are frequently performed when a natural miscarriage is incomplete to prevent hemorhagging and infection.
Perhaps I'm hyper aware of this because of my own struggles to have a child and the 2 medically necessary d&c procedures I've endured - both covered by insurance. But I am absolutely infuriated that a woman's health and future fertility could be put at risk by such an amendment. I fail to see how this is any different from restricting access to medical treatment for any other condition.
Is the administration aware of this? What will the administration do to ensure that women (and this does solely affect *women*) aren't put at risk by the willingness of politicians to serve up abortion rights as "compromise." The reproductive health of so many women could be at stake.
For those of you who aren't aware, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) negotiated an amendment to the Senate version of the health care bill that would permit states to place further restrictions on funds used for abortion. This will allow states to create their own mini-Stupak amendments. The Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House version of the bill, restricted federal funds used for abortions in plans on the exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or the where the life of the mother is in danger. There is no exception for procedures that are medically necessary to protect the future fertility of the mother if it doesn't rise to the level of risk of death.
Secretary Sebelius didn't address the more specific concerns that I mentioned in my question, but to be fair, the whole question wasn't asked. I understand why the more general question was asked. Morra had a set amount of time and it's nearly impossible to ask someone in Secretary Sebelius's position to comment on individual situations. I should have crafted my question more broadly to specifically address how restrictions will impact medically necessary abortion procedures.
Don't get me wrong, even if the bill had been drafted more precisely, I'd still be annoyed. Abortion is a legal procedure. And it definitely needs to be. A good friend, and fellow local progressive, became a nurse before abortion was legal. She still shudders when she talks about what happened to some women forced to seek back alley or do-it-yourself abortions.
Unfortunately I think the concerns many women have about restricting abortion access are simply being ignored. My fear is that restricting optional abortion access will lead to restrictions of medically necessary abortions, ensuring that only women of means will be able to obtain an abortion, whether optional or medically necessary. The idea that a legal procedure, one that is frequently necessary to preserve the future fertility of women, will be restricted, is infuriating to me. I don't see why the Nelson amendment couldn't have been crafted more creatively and specifically to prevent this. Unfortunately, Congress is using an axe and a sledgehammer when they should have used a surgical knife to carefully carve out restrictions to a legal medical procedure.
