Eliminating Abortion or Women's Reproductive Freedom?

Correction: Some early versions of this story may have erroneously attributed a quote to Reina Schiffrin, who is the President/CEO of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic. 

U.S. Democrats and local women’s health care providers are calling on Republicans to stop pursuing legislation that they say would create historically drastic cuts in women’s health services and reproductive freedoms.

“Since the beginning of the year the Republicans haven’t put a single bill on the floor that would create a single job,” said U.S. Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) at a press conference in White Plains Monday. “Instead, Republicans, the majority in the house, have prioritized an extremist agenda that seeks to roll back women’s reproductive rights.”

Bills H.R. 3, H.R. 358 and H.R. 217—titled “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” the "Protect Life Act,” and the "Title X Abortion Prohibition Act”—will make it more expensive to pay for healthcare from providers who cover abortions and would eliminate the Title X federal funding program that funds healthcare providers who offer full reproductive services.

Democrats and women’s advocates say the bills would allow hospitals to leave pregnant women to die; prevent the funding of abortions for rape and incest victims; and block crucial preventative care services, like birth control and STD screenings. Republicans say the legislation will make abortion inaccessible, which will reduce the number that occur in the United States each year.

At the press conference, Reina Schiffrin, President/CEO of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, called the bills “the most devastating legislative assault on women’s health care in American history.” 

“It’s not just about terminating pregnancies,” Lowey said. “These women who are struggling in the economy will have no place to go for their health care.”

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and several other Democratic senators also have spoken out against the bills and what they view as the Republican Party’s misplaced priorities. 

 “This agenda disregards women’s rights and restricts the ability of women to access affordable health care,” Gillibrand said in a press release.  “Clearly, the Republican House is not focusing on creating jobs or growing our economy, but making the degradation of women’s health care a top priority.”

 According to the press release, the bill would:

•  Redefine the definitions of rape and incest, according to the National Women’s Law Center. This would mean that states would no longer be required to offer abortions to poor women who were raped, were victims of incest or need the abortion to save their lives.
• No longer require hospitals to save the life of a pregnant woman if it meant the fetus would die.
• Eliminate Title X funding, which funds places like Planned Parenthood that provide abortions in addition to preventative services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, birth control, HIV and STD testing and treatment, and annual check-ups.  
• Restrict women from deducting the cost of purchasing health insurance that offers certain reproductive services.
•  Would prevent women and families from using pre-taxed dollars (via Flexible Spending Accounts) to pay for certain health care from providers who offer abortions.
•  Prevent small businesses from receiving tax credits if they choose providers who offer abortions.

Though federal law prohibits taxpayer money from directly funding abortions, federal funds can give aid to providers who offer a range of health care services, including abortion.

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) said the bill he sponsored, H.R.3,  “is designed to permanently end any U.S. government financial support for abortion, whether it be direct funding or by tax credits or any other subsidy.”

Smith says the abortion industry is a “multimillion dollar business,” and that Planned Parenthood raked in $1 billion in fees, local, state and federal subsidies, while killing 324,000 babies in 2008.

Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) says H.R. 358 aims to ensure that private insurance companies and families aren’t forced to cover abortion if they don't want to.

“Individuals who have strong moral objections are thereby forced to directly finance abortion coverage in order to purchase a health care plan they believe best provides for their needs and the needs of their family members,” said Upton, in a Feb. 9 committee meeting. “This is wrong and the legislation proposed by Mr. Pitts [Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA)] corrects this injustice.”

Smith said abortion is harmful to women, and that studies show women who get abortions are at higher risk for suicide and depression.  

“The ugly truth is that women are victimized by abortion—wounded and hurt physically and emotionally,” said Smith, on Jan. 20. “Women deserve better than abortion.”

Those on both sides of the debate encourage the public to reach out to their legislators about this issue. Click here to find out how to contact your representatives, and click on our video to see Monday's press conference in its entirety.