Abortion War Heats Up In The States
Since President Obama signed health care reform into law, a significant number of states have taken advantage of the law's carefully negotiated abortion provisions to restrict access to abortion coverage. The Nelson amendment attached to the health care bill not only prohibits public dollars from being used to finance abortions and requires insurers that choose to offer abortion coverage to collect a separate check from policy holders, it also specifically reasserts states' right to ban private insurers from providing abortion coverage to women within the state-based exchanges. As a result, states have used the Nelson language to reignite the abortion wars. As Center for American Progress Action Fund's Director of Women's Health and Rights Program Jessica Arons explained, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) "opened the door for them to legislate away private insurance coverage of abortion and the states are walking right through. This is no longer about public funding for abortion (and in fact, it never really was); this is about making abortion impossible to obtain for women of all means." The effort is being coordinated by Americans United for Life (AUL), a national anti-abortion group that released abortion opt-out legislation immediately after the law passed. "Currently, 29 have either introduced an opt-out bill, are planning to introduce a bill shortly, or are laying the ground work to introduce a bill as soon as their legislative calendars permit," AUL boasts on its website. "Some states, with our help, are going even farther than preventing insurance plans that cover abortions from participating in their state exchanges. One positive outcome from the 2009-2010 health care reform debate is that many more Americans are now aware that a large number of private insurance plans, even their own, cover elective abortions," the group argues. Indeed, moving far beyond merely restricting any coverage within the exchanges, states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah have used this political movement as an opportunity to foist further restrictions on abortion, even as millions of poor women are more in need of the procedure than ever before.
STRIPPING ABORTION FROM THE EXCHANGE: On April 24, Arizona became the first state to pass legislation prohibiting insurers in the state-run health care exchange "from providing coverage for abortions unless the coverage is offered as a separate optional rider for which an additional insurance premium is charged." The new Arizona law is a radical mini Stupak Amendment. It prevents insurers from offering abortion services, except under the most extreme circumstances, even if only private money were used to pay for those services. Most, if not all, women in the exchange would be able to purchase coverage only through an impractical, separate abortion "rider" or leave the exchange entirely and find coverage in the shrinking individual health insurance market. Since it's unlikely that many insurers will offer abortion riders or that women will purchase them in anticipation of needing an abortion -- in fact, "in the five states where abortion riders are currently required, no insurance company offers them" -- the Arizona law will severely disadvantage low income women who will likely have to pay out of pocket for abortion services and may not have the means to do so. Tennessee has passed a similar bill, which became law today, after Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) declined to either sign or veto the measure. The text of the bill "makes no mention of any exception for the case of rape, incest or if the mother's health is in danger," and many of the bill's supporters were confused about its text and intention. The bill prohibits all insurers from providing abortion coverage even if the woman pays for the insurance with private dollars, but lawmakers who voted for the measure "said they thought the bill was primarily intended to ensure that taxpayer dollars would not be used for abortion coverage in the state health insurance exchange." "My 'yes' vote was based on that it didn't change anything in Tennessee law...and that it's consistent with what we've been doing in the legislature for the past several years," said one legislator who voted for the bill. Lawmakers also said they only voted for the bill based on assurances "that the legislation does allow for exceptions, in keeping with federal law on federal funding for abortion" (federal law allows public funding for rape, incest, and life endangerment). At least eight other states, including Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, and Florida, are considering similar legislation .
PET ABORTION PROJECTS: Health reform has opened a Pandora's box of state efforts to restrict abortion coverage, both by removing coverage from state exchanges and placing other new restrictions on abortion access. Most recently, the Oklahoma Senate overrode the governor's veto to pass a law that requires "women seeking an abortion [to] have a viewable ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus prior to the procedure." "Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma's law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims," the New York Times observed. Oklahoma has also passed a law that protects doctors from being sued "if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect." "Under this new law, a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to consider abortion." Similarly, the Florida state senate just voted 22-17 "in favor of a new government mandate that women seeking abortions must pay for ultrasounds -- which averages from $200 to $1,000 -- and, in most cases, view live images of the fetus." In Utah, a new law makes self-induced abortion a homicide, and in Nebraska, Gov. Dave Heineman (R) signed legislation "banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain." Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist disavow the "science" behind the claim that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks after conception, but the so-called "Pain Capable Unborn Child Act" is more of a political statement than a policy proposal. The bill is "created almost entirely as a vehicle for getting anti-choice legislation challenged and potentially reviewed by the Supreme Court" and grew out of an effort to push one of the nation's few remaining late term abortion providers out of the state.
POOR WOMEN IN NEED OF ABORTIONS: States are passing their new abortion restrictions as families struggle in the midst of an economic recession. A new survey from the Guttmacher Institute reveals that poor women are obtaining abortions in greater numbers than women from other income brackets. From 2000 to 2008, "the proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased 59%," as women found it more difficult to access affordable birth control during an economic recession. Fifty-seven percent of women who had abortions also paid out of pocket for the procedure, regardless of their insurance status. As Guttmacher observes, "We suspect that several factors contributed to the lack of reliance on private insurance among women who had it. First, some may have had health care plans that exclude abortion services. ... Others may have been unaware that their plan covered abortion. Some women may have been reluctant to have the abortion on their insurance records out of concern that an employer, regular health care provider or family member whom they did not want to know about the abortion would have access to this information." The results are fairly consistent with earlier surveys, which found that continued stigmatization of abortion -- treating it as something outside the bounds of normal health care -- forces women to pay out of pocket and disproportionately disadvantages poor women, who undergo the procedure at higher rates than their more affluent counterparts.
SAUDI-FUNDED FOX NEWS REJECTS AD ARGUING AGAINST MIDDLE EAST OIL DEPENDENCE:
Last week, the progressive veterans organization VoteVets released an ad arguing that "a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations." The ad features a bedside alarm clock displaying an increasing dollar figure to symbolize the millions of dollars the U.S. spends making hostile countries like Iran "richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate." While CNN and MSNBC both aired the ad, Fox News refused to, claiming the ad was "too confusing." There is nothing confusing about the ad. In fact, VoteVets assertion that hostile nations profit from American dependence on foreign oil is based on a Progress Report analysis that finds that a strong cap on carbon would result in Iran losing $1.8 trillion of oil revenue over the next forty years -- or more than $100 million a day. "If the world moves away from oil dependence, Iran's regime will no longer be able to rely on petrodollars to stay afloat," the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson wrote. In a statement to The Progress Report, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, said, "The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy." While Fox News' motivation for rejecting the ad is unclear, Media Matters notes that the network has consistently spread misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, the largest stockholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch is Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News' parent company News Corp. But Murdoch himself has supported a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and said he believes Fox News ought to cover the issue differently.
Pushing Wall Street Reform Across The Finish Line
Last week, after three successful efforts by Senate Republicans to block the beginning of the final debate on Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) Wall Street reform legislation, the chamber unanimously agreed to begin the process of commencing a 30 hour debate, filing amendments, and ultimately holding a vote. On Wednesday, the Senate began voting on a series of amendments, some aimed at strengthening and some aimed at weakening the legislation. Since they were unable to use "Senate committee hearings and backroom negotiations among key lawmakers to remove or soften what the financial industry considers most objectionable in the bill," lobbyists for the biggest Wall Street banks were "on edge" as the Senate prepared to "consider populist amendments that spell even more heartburn for the banks." At the same time, lobbyists were hoping that the amendment process would allow their Senate allies to insert loopholes into the legislation that would protect the status quo. The voting started with general consensus as an amendment to eliminate a $50 billion resolution fund by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), which was the result of weeks of negotiations with Dodd, passed by a vote of 93 to 5. The fund had been the focus of unjustified GOP criticism that Dodd's bill would result in "permanent bailouts." The compromise to drop the fund emboldened progressive senators to "push aggressively for an array of proposals that could force some of the nation's biggest banks to reduce their size" and, as the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo noted, forced Republicans to find other areas, such as consumer protection and derivatives reform, to focus their complaints.
PUSHING STRONGER PROTECTIONS: In April, the Senate Budget Committee held a vote on an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would have broken up some of the nation's largest financial institutions considered "too big too fail." Though Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) paid lip service to the idea of limiting the size of the big banks, telling the Huffington Post that he preferred to make banks "smaller in order to avoid" the problems that arose during the financial crisis -- Cornyn voted against the amendment, helping to defeat it 10-12. Yesterday, the Senate took up a similar measure proposed by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE) that would have limited "large banks by capping at 10 percent the share of the U.S. total insured deposits it can hold, and restrict limits on leverage." Brown and Kaufman's amendment was "among the most deeply dreaded by Wall Street" and considered by the New York Times to be "the liberal amendment that could be hardest to defeat," but it ultimately was defeated 33-61. "This is certainly a defeat for those who are concerned about the dangers of financial concentration in this country," Kaufman said in a statement after the vote. "Some causes are worth fighting for, and for me, the concern about the risks 'too big to fail' banks pose to the American economy and people is deep and profound given the economic tragedy millions of American have endured." There is a populist amendment that is faring better. Initially, the Obama administration opposed Sanders' amendment allowing the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve. The measure, which has bipartisan support, is now expected to pass as Sanders struck a compromise limiting the scope of the GAO's one-time audit to "a thorough review of all the Fed's emergency lending, beginning December 1, 2007." "We appreciate the work of Senator Sanders and Senator Dodd to work together on a strong amendment that ensures full and open transparency regarding emergency lending programs, without compromising the Federal Reserve's full independence with respect to the conduct of monetary policy," Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said in a statement.
GOP ATTEMPTS TO EXEMPT: Though not the stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposed by the Obama administration and passed by the House of Representatives, Dodd's legislation creates a Bureau of Consumer Protection inside the Federal Reserve that would directly examine and enforce rules for all banks, non-bank mortgage lenders, and other "significant" non-banks regulated by the Federal Reserve with more than $10 billion in assets. According to Center for American Progress Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy David Min, "Dodd's Bureau as currently constructed is a good one, but if any of its key features are watered down, even a tiny bit, it will quickly become a bad proposal." Yesterday, Shelby, with the backing of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), offered a consumer protection amendment aimed at doing just that by exempting most of the financial system from oversight. Shelby's amendment, which was defeated in a 61-38 vote, would have moved the new consumer protection division to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that would have enforcement power over only "large non-bank mortgage originators." Shelby's division would have been powerless to take action against commercial banks, investment banks, credit card companies, car dealers, payday lenders, and non-banks that sell financial products other than mortgages such as AIG. Shelby's amendment also would have gutted the pre-emption approach in the current legislation. Dodd's bill, like the reform effort passed by the House last year, allows states to write stronger consumer protection laws than those set by the federal government (creating a federal floor for regulation, instead of a ceiling). The bill gives federal regulators the ability to preempt state law on a case-by-case basis. States like Georgia and New Jersey tried to reel in predatory subprime lending in 2002 and 2003, but federal bank regulators stopped them in their tracks. The banks and Shelby want full federal preemption of the states, so that they only have to focus on watering down laws at the federal level. Though some conservative Democrats are also in favor of blanket pre-emption, "[s]tate attorneys general from Iowa, Illinois and elsewhere have joined consumer advocates in opposing" the industry's changes.
DERIVATIVES OUT OF THE DARK: In April, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, introduced a comprehensive derivatives bill that was much tougher on Wall Street than originally expected. Lincoln's proposal not only brings derivatives -- famously called "financial weapons of mass destruction" by Warren Buffett -- out of the dark, but would also force commercial banks to spin-off their derivatives trading operations under a separate, independently capitalized roof. Lincoln's bill would place all standardized derivatives trades onto public exchanges, ending "over-the-counter" trades that occur between two parties without public information, thus allowing both investors and regulators to see what is going on in the market. Though this approach would help to avoid another AIG-type situation, in which a party makes derivatives trades with nothing to back them up, Republican senators, led by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA), have crafted an amendmentgets rid of the exchange trading mandate entirely, but gives regulators vast discretion to exempt trades from going through clearinghouses. Instead, Shelby says the bill will simply stipulate that "transactions will be 'made known' to regulators." According to the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo, "At its core, the amendment is an attempt to leave the derivatives market as is: opaque, with a lack of information for investors looking for fair prices and regulators looking to enforce the rules." Even former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson thinks this is the wrong approach. Speaking to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission yesterday, Paulson said that that derivatives should be standardized and put on exchanges, and anything that is not standardized should have onerous capital requirements. "Such regulations will encourage standardization, promote transparency, and penalize excessive complexity with capital charges, thereby restoring these products to their proper function -- mitigating, not enhancing, risk," he said. that not only
