Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

New Abortion Ban Bill Would Deny Abortion Coverage to Millions of Women and Allow Healthcare Providers to Deny Life-Saving Care to Women in Emergencies

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion, Anti-Choice Harassment, Legal Restrictions, Funding for Reproductive Healthcare

Regions:

United States

Work:

Engaging Policymakers, Around the World, In the States (USA), In Washington D.C.

Type:

Publications, Fact Sheets

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

02.07.2011

Engaging Policymakers Abortion United States Publications

New Abortion Ban Bill Would Deny Abortion Coverage to Millions of Women and Allow Healthcare Providers to Deny Life-Saving Care to Women in Emergencies

Justin Goldberg

Share

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id

On
January 20, 2011, Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced an extreme
anti-choice bill for consideration by Congress. 
Subsequently, on February 3, 2011, Rep. Pitts made public a revised
bill.  Key problems with the bill
include:



  • The bill would ban abortion coverage for
    millions of women. A majority of employer-based health plans currently
    include abortion coverage,[i]
    and many of these private plans will become part of the new health
    insurance marketplaces (called “exchanges”) and would be barred from
    offering insurance coverage for abortion.  

  • The bill would also allow a broad refusal
    provision to trump core patient protections contained in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
    Labor Act (“EMTALA”) – meaning that hospitals could refuse life-saving
    treatment to women on religious or moral grounds, thus causing their death
    inside the hospital despite their treatable condition.

  • The Pitts ban includes a subtle but insidious
    provision that would undermine the integrity of the healthcare law far
    beyond the abortion compromise.  The proposal’s broad carve-out for any
    state law on refusal could allow insurers to refuse to offer important
    preventive services otherwise required by the Affordable Care Act.
      For example, health plans could refuse
    to cover screening and counseling for HIV and other sexually transmitted
    infections, the human papilloma virus vaccine, or even pap smears for
    single women.

  • The proposal would also codify in permanent law
    harmful one-sided refusal provisions that undermine women’s access to
    essential care and information.


The Pitts Proposal Would Undermine
Healthcare Reform and Threaten Insurance Coverage


Part
of a larger effort to overturn healthcare reform and take away essential
coverage from millions of American families, the Pitts abortion ban is an
attempt to revive last year’s failed Stupak-Pitts ban. 


Like
prior efforts, the bill creates a fiction about federal funding to bar coverage
in the private insurance market. 
Healthcare reform allows every insurer to choose whether to provide such
coverage in private plans.[ii]  Burdensome and elaborate restrictions on
insurers required by the so-called “Nelson Amendment” ensure no federal dollar
will flow to coverage of abortion.


Moreover,
the troubling and burdensome restrictions in the Hyde Amendment also apply to
federal funds in healthcare reform.[iii]  A federal court in Virginia recently noted
that the Affordable Care Act “contains
strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used
to pay for abortion services
beyond those in cases of rape or incest, or
where the life of the woman would be endangered,” concluding that any claim to
the contrary was not “plausible.”[iv]


The
Pitts ban would bar insurance plans in the new exchanges from providing
abortion coverage if a single person receiving premium assistance credits
enrolls.  Because a great majority of individuals
on the exchanges will receive subsidies, the Pitts ban would therefore
essentially ban coverage of abortion in the exchanges for everyone – including
those paying for coverage entirely with private dollars. 


The
Pitts ban would also decrease – or even eliminate – abortion coverage in the
private market.  A George Washington
University Medical Center School report found after analyzing the Stupak-Pitts
ban that “the treatment exclusions required . . . will have an industry-wide
effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all
women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health-insurance
exchange.”[v]


Although
the bill offers up the ability for women to purchase “abortion riders,” it is
irrational to ask women and families to plan for an unplanned pregnancy by purchasing
separate, supplemental coverage.  Moreover,
women receiving premium assistance cannot afford healthcare insurance, let
alone a second insurance policy.  Most
importantly, history shows that insurers simply do not offer “rider” coverage
even when they are able to do so.[vi]


The
Pitts ban would forsake the fundamental promises of healthcare reform.  It would deny women abortion coverage despite
stringent restrictions that already assure that federal funding is segregated
from payments for coverage, and would threaten or eliminate coverage that women
already have for abortion in the private insurance marketplace.


The Pitts Bill Expands the Culture
of Refusal and Intensifies a Discriminatory Refusal Policy


Current
law amply protects healthcare providers who entertain religious or moral
objections to the provision of abortion services.[vii]  Since 1973, the Church Amendment has provided
that no individual may be discriminated against because they performed or
refused to perform an abortion based on their religious beliefs or moral
convictions. Other federal laws bolster those opt-outs specifically for those
who refuse to provide abortions services. 
The Affordable Care Act left all of these laws intact, and as well as
adding a new, one-sided provision barring health plans from discriminating
against healthcare providers or facilities because of their refusal to “provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.”[viii] 


Despite
the policy attention to refusal, those who choose to provide abortion services
are routinely harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against, as documented
in our 2009 report.[ix]


The
Pitts refusal provision does nothing to protect the men and women who provide
abortion services. Moreover, the lopsided Pitts provision violates a fundamental
principle of American law by allowing discrimination based on viewpoint, and is
inconsistent with the concepts of balance and fairness that undergird our legal
system.


Women
seeking abortion services must often overcome significant hurdles in finding a
provider – from the Guttmacher Institute: “87% of all U.S. counties lacked an
abortion provider in 2008, 35% of women in the U.S. live in those counties.”[x]  Against this backdrop, the Pitts bill would
both dramatically expand and make permanent a dangerous, discriminatory refusal
policy that undermines women’s access to healthcare.[xi]


The Pitts Bill Would Allow the
Denial of Emergency Care, Threatening Women’s Lives


A
late addition to the revised version of the Pitts bill would allow the
expansive refusal provision to trump the patient protections in a key health
law, the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”).  As the
name implies, a particular focus of concern under the law is the health and
safety of pregnant women, who must be able to go to the nearest emergency room
for adequate care throughout a pregnancy.


Yet allowing refusal objections to interfere with
even those emergency measures necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman
would mean that women entering a hospital are unwittingly allowing others to
play Russian Roulette with their lives. 
In a related incident last year, the Bishop of an Archdiocese in Arizona
excommunicated a nun who had permitted a life-saving pregnancy termination to
go forward at St. Joseph’s hospital. The Catholic status of the hospital was
also subsequently revoked.[xii]  In a letter about the case, Bishop Olmsted
argued that there was no way to provide life-saving treatment for the pregnant
woman in question consistent with Church doctrine.[xiii]


The Pitts Bill Would Give Refusal
Rights to Corporations


The
refusal provision in the Pitts ban goes far beyond protecting individual
conscience.  Instead, it would allow
corporations – for any reason – to interfere with the doctor-patient
relationship, regardless of the doctors’ own beliefs or the patients’ medical
needs.  It is a basic tenet of ethical
healthcare provision that patients must be presented with accurate and complete
information about their medical options in order to make decisions about their
healthcare.  The Pitts refusal provision
denies women that fundamental right.


The Pitts Bill Would Allow Anyone
for Any Reason to Obstruct Access to Care


The
Pitts refusal provision could allow an endless stream of obstruction by those
who would deny women access to abortion services for any reason.  Unlike the Church Amendment, the Pitts
provision does not limit its scope to those with religious or moral beliefs,
instead, it would allow a denial of care by anyone, including those motivated
to refuse access to abortion for political or other reasons.  What’s more, the Pitts provision could allow
people with only a tangential connection to the provision of abortion care to
interfere with the provision of services in a way that could delay or deny care
– such as receptionists who make appointments or claims adjustors at insurance
companies.


Preemption Language Would Undermine
Access to Essential Health Services – Like Pap Smears and Vaccines – Well
Beyond Abortion.


The
Pitts ban includes a subtle but insidious provision that would undermine the
integrity of the healthcare law far beyond the abortion compromise.  The proposal’s broad carve-out protection for
any state refusal law could allow insurers to refuse to offer important
services that are part of the minimum standards for health coverage set by the
Affordable Care Act.  These standards
could include services and supplies related to contraception, infertility, and
sexually transmitted infections. 
Preventive services already required include screening and counseling
for HIV and


several
other sexually transmitted disease, cervical cancer screening, and vaccination
for human papilloma virus.


Opponents
of comprehensive health services object to a broad range of services – from
birth control to genetic testing to end-of-life care to reproductive
technologies that allow more and more couples to become parents.[xiv]


This
provision is a back-door attempt to create new exemptions that were considered
and rejected by Congress during the health reform debate.


Additional Provisions in Pitts that
Undermine Access to Healthcare


The Pitts Ban Would Trample on
States’ Rights


In
the fair balance struck during healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act does
not affect any state law regarding coverage or funding of abortion services –
either prohibiting or requiring it.[xv]  The Pitts ban would destroy this even-handed
protection for state policies, and instead would protect only those state laws
that restrict or prohibit coverage of abortion, undermining the sovereignty of
states that may choose to treat abortion services like other healthcare
services. 


The Pitts Ban Interferes with the
Private Market Decisions of Insurance Plans


The
Affordable Care Act allows insurers to determine whether or not a plan provides
coverage of abortion services.[xvi]
It also ensures that there will be at least one multi-state plan that does not
provide coverage of abortion services, allowing for a range of options.[xvii]  The Pitts ban would interfere with the
private market decisions of insurance plans by barring all such coverage in any
multi-state plan.[xviii]


The Bill Includes Gag Provisions
that Would Deny Access to Reproductive Health Information


The
Pitts ban prohibits anyone implementing the Affordable Care Act – the
Department of Health and Human Services, the state-based exchanges – from
ensuring “access” to abortion services.[xix]  Under this new and far-reaching language in the
Pitts ban, therefore, women could be barred from even receiving information
about abortion services, including information about whether or not abortion
care is covered by a given insurance plan.








[i] Guttmacher Institute, Memo on Private Insurance Coverage of
Abortion (Jan. 19, 2011) at http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/01/19/index.html.




[ii] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L. No. 111-148, §
1303, 124 Stat. 119, 168-171 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 18023 (West 2010)).




[iii] Id. § 1303(b)(1)(B)(i).




[iv] Liberty University v.
Geithner
, 2010 WL 4860299, at *24 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2010) (explaining further that “In plans
that do provide non-excepted abortion coverage, a separate payment for
non-excepted abortion services must be made by the policyholder to the insurer,
and the insurer must deposit those payments in a separate allocation account
that consists solely of those payments, the insurer must use only the amounts
in that account to pay for non-excepted abortion services. Act § 1303(b)(2)(B),
(C). Insurers are prohibited from using funds attributable to premium tax
credits or cost-sharing reductions in out-of-pocket maximum limits for
individuals with income below 400 percent of the federal poverty level to pay
for non-excepted abortion services. Act § 1303(b)(2)(A).”).




[v] Sara Rosenbaum et. al., An
Analysis of the Implications of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment for Coverage of
Medically Indicated Abortions
(Nov. 16, 2009), http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_FED314C4-5056-9D20-3DBE77EF6ABF0FED.pdf.




[vi] See, e.g., Kaiser Foundation, “How the House
Abortion Restrictions Would Work,” Nov. 10, 2009, available at
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/November/10/abortion-explainer.aspx
(last visited Nov. 11, 2009), Peter Slevin, Insurers
report on use of abortion riders
, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2010.




[vii] See Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7 (2006), Coats Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §
238n (2006), Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 508(d)(1), 123 Stat. 524,
803 (2009).




[viii] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L. No. 111-148, §
1303(b)(4), 124 Stat. 119, 168-171 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 18023 (West
2010)).




[ix] Center for
Reproductive Rights, Defending Human
Rights: Abortion Providers Facing Threats, Restrictions, and Harassment
(2009),
available at //www.reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingHumanRights.pdf.




[x] Guttmacher Institute,
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United
States
(Jan. 2011), at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.




[xi] Protect Life Act, 112th Cong. § 2(a)(7) (2011).




[xii] See Laurie Goodstein, Arizona:
Hospital Loses Catholic Affiliation
, N.Y. Times, Dec. 22, 2010, at A25.




[xiii] See Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, Statement
in Response to Abortion Performed at St. Joseph’s Hospital
(May 15, 2010).




[xiv] See, e.g., Helen Alvare,
How the New Health Care Law Endangers
Conscience
(June 2010), available at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1402.




[xv] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L. No. 111-148, §
1303(c)(1), 124 Stat. 119, 168-171 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 18023 (West
2010)).




[xvi] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L. No. 111-148, §
1303(b)(1)(A)(ii), 124 Stat. 119, 168-171 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 18023
(West 2010)).




[xvii] Id. § 1334(a)(6).




[xviii] Protect Life Act, 112th Cong. § 2(b) (2011).




[xix] Protect Life Act, 112th Cong. § 2(a)(3) (2011).



https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pub_fac_pitts_2-7-11_v2.pdf
  • Download Attachment

Related Posts

Complaint: Medical Students for Choice vs. Wright

Abortion,United States, Accountability Bodies,Engaging Policymakers

Testimony of the Center for Reproductive Rights on the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson Proposal

The Center for Reproductive Rights respectfully submits the following testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance in strong opposition...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions, Other Barriers, Contraception, Legal Restrictions, Funding for Reproductive Healthcare, Other Financial Barriers, Right to Care, Maternal Health,United States,Engaging Policymakers

June Medical Services v. Gee: Petition for Attorney’s Fees

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts, Engaging Policymakers, In the States (USA)

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Gift Acceptance Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2024)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Better Business Bureau Charity Watch Top Rated Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up