FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 19, 2009
Contact: Samantha Levine, 917-488-0075
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH OPPOSES REID'S MANAGER'S AMENDMENT, CONDEMNS "50 STATE STUPAK SOLUTION"
Statement from Kelli Conlin, President of the National Institute for Reproductive Health
The National Institute for Reproductive Health opposes the so-called Nelson-Reid compromise on abortion coverage in the Senate bill and therefore withholds our support of the Senate bill.
While we recognize the efforts of our pro-choice women senators to combat the onerous conditions upon which Stupak and Nelson have insisted, we are frankly horrified by the shameful process that has allowed two men to hold American women hostage.
This Manager's Amendment is not a compromise. It is a 50 state "Stupak Solution" even more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment.
It is not acceptable to burden women and employers with the chilling requirement of multiple payment structures, creating a condition where participants are less likely to opt for full coverage. And it is unconscionable to allow state-run exchanges to opt out of providing abortion coverage, even when a woman's life is in danger. This measure simply shifts the battle from the federal government to the states where we will now have each state legislature deciding whether or not to allow insurance companies to cover abortion. This will result in a patchwork of coverage for women with holes throughout the U.S.
Sadly, this health care reform bill -- which held such promise to do such good --has sold out women and, by virtue of its dismissive treatment of women, awakened a sleeping giant. The anti-choice representatives behind the Stupak-language counted on the complacency of pro-choice women. But they gambled wrong.
In the event that this bill passes as written, the National Institute for Reproductive Health is committed to working with our allies and colleagues in cities and sates around the country to ensure that the state-run exchanges provide an insurance option that covers abortion care.
Simply put: women's access to care should depend on where she lives. That is not the health care reform we were promised.