Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) takes issue with a George Washington University study, which found that his anti-abortion amendment to House health care legislation would ultimately cause insurance companies to stop covering abortions altogether.
"The idea that insurers will stop providing abortion services because of the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment is nothing more than speculation," Stupak says, in a statement to TPMDC. "There is no language in this amendment that in any way prohibits private health insurance companies from offering these services."
To the contrary, the amendment clearly states, "nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section." The language in Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts is completely consistent with Hyde language, which in its 30 years of existence has not inhibited private health insurers from offering abortion services. There is no reason to believe a continuation of this policy would suddenly change that.It should also be pointed out that the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan, with more than 8 million members, does not allow abortion coverage. Yet the companies that offer abortion free plans to federal employees also offer plans with abortion coverage to private individuals. Given insurance companies are already offering separate plans with and without abortion coverage it seems unlikely it will be a significant hardship to continue to do so on the Exchange.
The GWU study concluded that insurance companies would respond to the abortion restrictions in the Stupak amendment by whittling down abortion coverage over time until they stop offering it altogether--a business decision not strictly mandated by the legislation itself, but the impact would be the same. .

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

mcc
November 21, 2009 11:37 AM
Stupak's in a bit of a weird situation because he consistently claims his amendment does practically nothing at all, which raises the question of then why pass it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
November 21, 2009 11:43 AM
Backpeddle much Stupak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
planetsean
November 21, 2009 11:45 AM
I'm gobstupped!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmar
November 21, 2009 12:36 PM
If it's no "Big Thang" then why is he insisting it's in there??? Either he is confused or thinks we are!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
November 21, 2009 2:03 PM
Thems some clumsy tapdancing
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DanielFBoone
November 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Those glasses look much better on Palin
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nightslider
November 21, 2009 3:13 PM
Ever see a fool tap dance with his shoe laces tied? like Larry Craig trying to dance his way out of his ticket for toe tapping, hmmm did'nt he kinda stumble over his own stupididty?
Hey for real I want to see him (Stupak)do Michael Jacksons MOON WALK with his shoe laces tied.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapsed catholic
November 21, 2009 4:45 PM
He's confused about the word "shall". He clearly thinks his use of "shall" in his legislation is a simple decree of what shall happen in the future. Somebody needs to tell this guy about what "de facto" means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OceanDog
November 21, 2009 5:23 PM
What an effing d-bag. Unfortunately, he gets to continue promoting his BS when Chris Matthews allows him to spew the lies over and over again.
This is a good piece that explains why the amendment is so unbelievably wrong.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/09/stupak-amendment-jessica/
I especially like this: "3. It allows for a useless abortion “rider”: Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
November 22, 2009 1:20 AM
"nothing more than speculation"
stupak apparently can't tell analysis from the ass in his hat.
but you're right bart, we can't predict the future with certainty. still, that's not the same as pretending we can't determine likely outcomes. not that you've ever put much stock in scientific reasoning....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Damage
November 22, 2009 2:48 AM
If this is actually included in the final legislation, the Stupid-Piss amendment will become the 'Sue Them Into The Stone Age' fundraising vehicle for every Pro-Birth operation from the Vatican to Operation Rescue. Every provider and every recipient of any abortion will have to prove in some court somewhere that the money not only wasn't federal money, but wasn't made available because other financial supports from the federal government freed up the money.
If the twenty dollars a month a poor woman spends on supplemental abortion insurance is freed up because her main health insurtance is discounted by the federal government, well, there.
"You see, Your Honor. That money is available because of federal money that went to her, therefore, it violates the Stupid Amendment. Stone her."
Don't believe it? Aren't you paying attention?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
November 23, 2009 3:51 PM
If the Stupak Amendment is no big thing, why do I see all the pro-abortion comments?
Abortion kills innocent human life.
Abortion is not healthcare.
Americans do not want to fund abortion as part of healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?