A Discriminatory Compromise

 In an interview with the New York Times Magazine last summer, which I have referenced in past blogs, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”   Justice Ginsberg’s observation has become particularly noticeable in the last year as reproductive rights have been volleyedbetween the House and Senate health care reform bills. Furthermore, her comment that “this hasn’t been said more often” has proven accurate throughout the debate. However, Ezra Klein, writer for The Washington Post has reported that the disparate impact of the abortion language based on womens’ financial means since November. He wrote:   “Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.”   Klein reminds us today that: “the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive. It would, after all, be the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it wouldn't have a chance. That group is too large and too affluent and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch its access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange are a much easier target.”    I strongly recommend reading Ezra Klein’s two short articles for more context on the relationship between choice and class here and here.   Unfortunately, Congress and the White House have not demonstrated any interest in correcting this disparity. Obama has stated that health care reform should be “abortion-neutral”. He says that “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill”. Yet abortions are a legal form of health care, health care has never been abortion neutral (as Klein and Justice Ginsberg note above), and “the status quo” discriminates against poorer women. It is unacceptable.   And yet it appears that the Nelson language in the Senate health care bill may become law in the coming week or two. The “status quo” will persevere, certainly for the worse, especially for low income women. We don’t have to be quiet about it. Tell Congress that both the Nelson language and Stupak amendment are unacceptable.  

March 13, 2010

In an interview with the New York Times Magazine last summer, which I have referenced in past blogs, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”

Justice Ginsberg’s observation has become particularly noticeable in the last year as reproductive rights have been volleyedbetween the House and Senate health care reform bills. Furthermore, her comment that “this hasn’t been said more often” has proven accurate throughout the debate. However, Ezra Klein, writer for The Washington Post has reported that the disparate impact of the abortion language based on womens’ financial means since November. He wrote:

“Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.”

Klein reminds us today that: “the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive. It would, after all, be the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it wouldn't have a chance. That group is too large and too affluent and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch its access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange are a much easier target.”

I strongly recommend reading Ezra Klein’s two short articles for more context on the relationship between choice and class here and here.

Unfortunately, Congress and the White House have not demonstrated any interest in correcting this disparity. Obama has stated that health care reform should be “abortion-neutral”. He says that “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill”. Yet abortions are a legal form of health care, health care has never been abortion neutral (as Klein and Justice Ginsberg note above), and “the status quo” discriminates against poorer women. It is unacceptable.

And yet it appears that the Nelson language in the Senate health care bill may become law in the coming week or two. The “status quo” will persevere, certainly for the worse, especially for low income women. We don’t have to be quiet about it. Tell Congress that both the Nelson language and Stupak amendment are unacceptable.