Who Subsidizes Abortion?

As is now widely known, added to the health care reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives was a provision barring access to abortion called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Passed with the support of sixty-four Democrats, Stupak-Pitts doesn't merely prohibit coverage of abortion in a public option. It also forbids women who receive a federal subsidy from purchasing any health insurance plan that covers the procedure, even if the abortion is paid out of a separate pool of private premium dollars (for all the background and details, see my colleague Emily Douglas' post).

If this highly regressive amendment makes its way into the legislation that Barack Obama eventually signs, millions of less affluent women who obtain access to affordable health insurance will thus join the ranks of low-income women on Medicaid, most of whom live in states that don't cover abortion procedures. The two-tiered system that dictates who in America has "choice" (more privileged women do, less affluent women do not) will be further entrenched.

But if the social consequences of Stupak-Pitts are clear, the logic is not. Supporters of the provision evidently want to assure taxpayers that they will not be forced to subsidize abortion in any way. But if they are serious about this, why haven't they drawn up an amendment abolishing tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance? As Jonathan Cohn has pointed out, this is by far the largest subsidy in health care policy today. (It is also a regressive subsidy, but that's another story.) If the employer-sponsored insurance that a worker gets happens to cover abortion – which, in roughly half the cases, it does – than that taxpayer already subsidizes abortion.

The purists who don't want any of their dollars to subsidize abortion have another problem. As Amy Sullivan of Time has observed, plenty of pro-life people likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services (in which case their premiums indirectly fund the procedure). The same goes for pro-life organizations. Sullivan did a bit of digging and found out that Focus on the Family provides its employees insurance through Principal, a company that - you guessed it - covers abortion procedures.

"If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well," Sullivan notes. "And if they don't think they do have a fungibility problem, then it would be interesting to hear why they think the set-up proposed in health reform legislation is so untenable."

Comments (43)

1. "The purists who don't want any of their dollars to subsidize abortion have another problem"

   there is no such thing as purity. death is everywhere around us, as is life. and we all hang in the balance.

   having said that, the stupak amendment is unconscionable, regressive and is a ridiculous violation of privacy; and obama should not sign any bill with it in it.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 9:37pm

2. "plenty of pro-life people likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services"

   The difference is if they discover their plan covers it and do not wish to have such a plan they can CHANGE to another plan! With nationalized health insurance you have NO choice.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 9:48pm

3. Does Blue Cross ever cover regular old sorority girl abortions? Rape abortions? Fetal bad news abortions?

   Which companies do?

   United, Aetna?

   TN please investigate!

   Think some all-American Christian winger's ever going to go all Doctor Hasan on them? Maybe blow up a Chevy full of fertilizer in front of their headquarters while shooting God is Great?

   Posted by winyahn at 11/09/2009 @ 9:54pm

4. "The difference is if they discover their plan covers it and do not wish to have such a plan they can CHANGE to another plan! With nationalized health insurance you have NO choice"

   bigpasture,

   numerous republican congressional figures, mostly men, and some democrats too (see stupak) receive gobs of money from insurance providers who cover ABORTIONS, and here they are opposed to a bill which funds abortions.

   the hypocrisy is staggering.

   oh, btw, of what "nationalized health insurance" do you speak?

   Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:40pm

5. Buried in the bowels of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2,000-page healthcare reform bill is a powerful carrot for states that agree to give up on tort reform – and a stick to wallop those that won't.

   Section 2531 of Pelosi's $1.2 trillion House bill appears to be another example of dangling taxpayer dollars to get states to do what Beltway politicians want.

   The provision states that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius can award an "incentive" in "an amount determined by the secretary" to states that qualify.

   It pays to be a Demoncrat major contributor!

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 11:28pm

6. bigpasture-It pays to be a major GOP contributor,too.Once you figure that out then you really will be an independent.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 11:36pm

7. i'm nobody - difference their contributors create jobs and grow the economy rather than suck the blood and life out of it! The jobless have grown to 15,000,000 or by 47% since the Obamanation and Demoncrats took over with a real unemployment of 17% and rising!

   Now the Obamanation and Demoncrats just want to worsen the situation in the intrest of consolidating their power perpetually, not in our best intrest.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 11:46pm

8. bigpasture-If you ever figure out that there is no difference then you really will be an independent.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 11:47pm

9. oh, btw, of what "nationalized health insurance" do you speak? Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:40pm |

   Does AIG do health insurance plans too?

   Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:12am

10. "The jobless have grown to 15,000,000 or by 47% since the Obamanation and Demoncrats took over with a real unemployment of 17% and rising!"

    but that had nothing to do whatsoever with his predecessor. nah. bush had perfectly balanced budgets. what a genius, that W.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:22am

11. "Now the Obamanation and Demoncrats just want to worsen the situation in the intrest of consolidating their power perpetually, not in our best intrest."

    but republicans have absolutely interest in power, and in fact, are far, far more interested in the interests of working class people. that's why their healthcare alternative........SUCKS.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:23am

12. It's official. The Joint Tax Committee informs us that under the terms of the Pelosi health-care bill, "Americans who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."

    And so we have, yet again, a perfect illustration of the truism that socialism would work perfectly if only there were no people. Since we do have people, with all their self-interested motives and unwillingness to bend their inherent nature to ideological demands, socialism in practice encounters problems, known as Enemies of the People.

    No wonder Pelosi et al. want desperately to jam this legislation through the House before lawmakers go home for the Veterans Day break and encounter Tea Parties more numerous and louder than before. How has American self-government come to this?

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:39am

13. "It's official. The Joint Tax Committee informs us that under the terms of the Pelosi health-care bill, "Americans who do not maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.""

    lie, lie, and lie. these are TAX CODE violations, not refusal to buy health insurance.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:43am

14. digby:

    "This amendment doesn't just punish Lord Saletan's little sluts. All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities"

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:56am

15. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:39am |

    If your TeaParty(tm) goons had an inkling of a clue they'd stop going to the capitol and spend more time exercising their right to free assembly on Wall St.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 07:11am

16. Just got a new book from Amazon. "The Annotated Alice", the definitive edition. After reading the chapter "The Mad Tea-Party", I became convinced that Lewis Carroll was way ahead of his time. Like Orwell he had seen the future in that peculiar English way..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/10/2009 @ 08:46am

17. The Dormouse reminded me of Rio, and the Mad Hatter is a ringer for Anti.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/10/2009 @ 08:51am

18. lie, lie, and lie. these are TAX CODE violations, not refusal to buy health insurance.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:43am

    but the tax code violations are for not paying the tax penalty for refusing to buy health insurance.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:02am

19. Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 9:48pm

    So, Rio...why hasn't James Dobson and FOTF changed their plan from that "pro-abortion" Principal insurance company's plan????

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:18am

20. Does AIG do health insurance plans too?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:12am

    I took a look at AIG's 10-k and I couldn't find any material medical health.

    AIG's main lines are P&C, and life and retirement. To the extent AIG mentions "health" they are refering to Disability Income or Long-term Care insurance. I would doubt they have any material medical health insurance covers.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 09:56am

21. "but the tax code violations are for not paying the tax penalty for refusing to buy health insurance"

    that's different. that's not what conservatives are arguing. they are arguing that this particular section is within the health bill. it is not.

    this is no different than refusing to pay your income tax. like the mayor of oakland didn't do btw 2005-2007. now he's in trouble. like $200,000 in trouble. but he's not going to JAIL!!!!!!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:02am

22. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 09:56am |

    It was a sarcastic joke about their (effective) nationalization, no more, but one *could* ask how many of their P&C lines are purchased by health insurance companies.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 11:44am

23. Uh, we're already subsidizing abortion, with Obama's reversal of the "Mexico City Policy."

    Posted by missionunaccomplished at 11/10/2009 @ 12:14pm

24. Posted by missionunaccomplished at 11/10/2009

    Gag rule is a Ping Pong ball for almost two decades. Nobody wins or loses by batting it around...Dem or Repub.

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 12:25pm

25. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:39am |

    If your TeaParty(tm) goons had an inkling of a clue they'd stop going to the capitol and spend more time exercising their right to free assembly on Wall St.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 07:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Odd you would support that given that the Obmanation and Demoncrats secured the lions share of their campaign money from Wall Street Bankers and then aptly rewarded them with "few strings attached" bailouts , most of which will never be paid back ,that made for the rebirth of speculative investments!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm

26. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm

    Odd you don't want to answer snowball's question...

    why are the Tea Party rallies ONLY at Washington, DC...and not on Wall Street where the bailout moneies actually went????

    ((BTW, we both know the answer to that, don't we?))

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 1:50pm

27. why are the Tea Party rallies ONLY at Washington, DC...and not on Wall Street where the bailout moneies actually went????

    ((BTW, we both know the answer to that, don't we?))

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Don't be an idiot by ignoring the fact that tea parties have and are being held in thousands of U.S.A. towns and cities involving millions of ordinary citizens. Scant few would be found in NYC a bastion of leftist world views.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 2:00pm

28. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm |

    Nothing 'odd' about it, Rio.

    You can pretend that Pugs are above the same tactics of which you accuse the Demoncrats, but its a sham...they're both bought and paid for.

    Things I'd support:

    - Reversing Buckley v Valeo (to eliminate the pay-for-play you seem so upset about above)

    - Restoring Glass-Steagall (dismember the zombies!)

    - Divesting from all 'bailed out' companies who pay bonuses with taxpayer funds (including the $2T in Fed funny money)

    - Regulating OTC derivatives / CDOs (like Greenspan should have recommended in '98)

    - Forcing investment banks, oh I'm sorry...'bank holding companies'...to bolster their capital ratios with convertible debt that becomes equity if, I mean when, they drop the ball again

    - Taxing derivative transactions by volume to discourage rampant speculation

    - Shining the light of day on 'dark pool' trading

    - etc ad nauseum

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:21pm

29. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 2:00pm |

    So the buses that Dick Armey's FreedomWorks paid for to get people to the capitol couldn't make it to the Big Apple?

    Curious.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:22pm

30. #11 Thou shalt revere moneygrubbing corporations, for they are not the Ant-Christ. #11A- That fool Obama be the Ant-Christ!

    Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 2:52pm

31. this is no different than refusing to pay your income tax. like the mayor of oakland didn't do btw 2005-2007. now he's in trouble. like $200,000 in trouble. but he's not going to JAIL!!!!!!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:02am

    Of course it is different, because it's not an income tax. It a PENALTY for not purchasing health insurance. It will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:17pm

32. "It a PENALTY for not purchasing health insurance"

    it is a tax, not a penalty.

    i don't agree with it, but it's technically not a "penalty"

    if you don't pay the tax, *then* you get a "penalty."

    this is a tax code violation, not a refusal to purchase health insurance.

    you can refuse to purchase health insurance, but still be taxed, and if you don't pay the tax, you get a penalty.

    big difference.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 4:37pm

33. So the buses that Dick Armey's FreedomWorks paid for to get people to the capitol couldn't make it to the Big Apple?

    Curious.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why would they go there? Clearly they owe their sucess to the Obamanation and the Demoncrats who they have bought and paid for!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm

34. "It a PENALTY for not purchasing health insurance"

    it is a tax, not a penalty.

    i don't agree with it, but it's technically not a "penalty"

    if you don't pay the tax, *then* you get a "penalty."

    this is a tax code violation, not a refusal to purchase health insurance.

    you can refuse to purchase health insurance, but still be taxed, and if you don't pay the tax, you get a penalty.

    big difference.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 4:37pm

    Wrong. If you don't purchase health insurance, you will pay a penalty tax of 2.5% of your income which will be entered on a line of your 1040. You will be required to furnish evidence of purchasing the insurance.

    You can try and avoid the semantics, but a penalty is imposed when you violate a requirement. Show me another "tax" for refusing to purchase something in this country?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 6:30pm

35. abortion is bad

    Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 7:26pm

36. abortion is bad

    Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes it is.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 8:44pm

37. Why would they go there? Clearly they owe their sucess to the Obamanation and the Demoncrats who they have bought and paid for! Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm |

    Because they *CLAIM* to be against 'bailouts'...but you're right...those were BUSH/PAULSON bucks anyway.

    You're about as 'independent' as a fetus.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 9:18pm

38. abortion is bad Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 7:26pm |

    mmmmkay?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:21am

39. abortion is bad.

    no, it isn't. forced pregnancy is bad.

    forced pregnancy= forced abortions.

    since children are best served by a family consisting of a mother and a father, I propose forced abortions for every woman who does not meet that requirement. same for any pregnancy in a woman over a certain age, say 35. also women who are here illegally. we don't want to be lumbered with all those legacy babies. certainly all convicts. if you're in prison you don't need a baby. any woman convicted of any drug offense, no baby for you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:11am

40. The Dormouse reminded me of Rio, and the Mad Hatter is a ringer for Anti.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/10/2009 @ 08:51am

    AWESOME!!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:13pm

41. Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 2:00pm

    DC is a "left-wing bastion", Rio...and they show up THERE?

    Again, why can't the Tea Partyers, who CLAIM it's about "Washington AND Wall Street corruption"...

    put in an appearance on Wall Street????

    Again as well, we both know the answer....their controllers don't want any real protests against THEIR guys, do they?

    Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 3:05pm

42. Abortion is legal.

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/11/2009 @ 10:52pm

43. <i>Posted by kirquaker at 11/11/2009 @ 10:52pm </i>

    Yeah...that's true, I forgot that bad constitutional arguments were the foundation of all good political debate.

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 11:29pm