Because most participants in the insurance exchange would receive some federal subsidy (the New York Times reports that “anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four — four times the poverty level — would be eligible for a subsidy under the House bill”), insurers in the exchange are strongly incentivized to cut abortion coverage from their offerings. The result?  A de facto ban on abortion coverage within the insurance exchange – a ban which would affect even those who don’t receive federal health subsidies.

There are many stories to be told here, but I’ll limit myself to just a few. First, even if we’re not losing the culture war, Democrats apparently think we are. Disturbingly, 20 Dems with pro-choice track records voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment; at least 11 of them are in vulnerable positions for 2010, and they presumably believe that a vote for reproductive health is more dangerous than a vote for health reform. (Nate Silver points out that voter polls indicate the contrary.) The Left collectively needs to grapple with some large questions around the future of RJ and the Democratic Party.

Our second story: Congress hasn’t simply sold out women’s health; they’ve specifically sold out the health of low-income women. As RJ activists, we should be particularly attuned to intersections of economic justice and reproductive health, and to the ways in which the Stupak Amendment furthers the economic stratification of abortion access. (more…)

A Congressional staffer recently reprimanded me for suggesting that Democrats might be in the business of compromise despite their solid majority in the House. “Show me,” she demanded, “how have we compromised?” Well, for starters, Democrats have continuously turned their back on their largest voting block—women—by repeatedly holding out access to abortion as a sacrificial lamb. Case in point: the Stupak Amendment Dems offered last night to pave the way for passage of the House’s health care reform bill.

The Amendment, which passed 240-194, not only bars a public option plan from providing abortions, but prohibits individuals from using government subsidies to purchase a plan that provides abortions. Those familiar with current restrictions on federal funding for abortion might think this amendment just preserves the status quo. They’re wrong. Most available healthcare plans currently provide coverage for abortions. The Amendment has the potential to push such plans out of the market—or at least to unaffordable levels—by prohibiting their purchase with federal subsidies.

It seems paradoxical that a reform effort aimed at increasing access to affordable, quality health services could exclude access to comprehensive reproductive health care. It’s more than a little bittersweet that clearing the first hurdle in the race toward national healthcare reform has come at the expense of women’s health. It’s even harder to stomach that our nation’s pro-choice champions manufactured the deal.

Lauren R. S. Mendonsa