NOW is outraged to learn that the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed an amendment excluding abortion services from the "essential" health benefits package as defined by the government. Under this amendment, subsidies used to help pay insurance premiums for low-income people could not be used for abortion services. The New York Times reports that "insurers must use money from private sources to pay for any abortions.""Reproductive health care is a fundamental right. Any health care plan that does not cover the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, discriminates against women," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "Once again, our representatives are giving in to the right wing by trading away women's rights. Well, I have a message for them, our reproductive rights are not theirs to give away."O'Neill noted that a majority of voters support coverage for abortion services, with only about a quarter opposed to using tax dollars to pay for abortion. In addition, a recent study found that most people in the U.S. with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion. "Don't low-income people deserve the same level of coverage as other people in this country?" asked O'Neill. "Our lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating class-based and gender-based biases as they attempt to 'reform' our broken health care system."
Sonya Sotomayor says Roe is settled law..let's hope she means it.
In other amazing news, the 35 foot buffer zone law was upheld in nearby MA. This buffer zone was established in 2007 to ensure safe access to clinics and protect women and staff from harassment.
July 13, 2009
Law Protecting Clinic Buffer Zone Upheld
The US 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Massachusetts law on Friday, allowing a 35-foot safety buffer zone between protestors and abortion clinic entrances. The law, established in 2007, protects clinic patients and staff from harassment.
Five anti-choice protesters originally filed the lawsuit on the grounds that the safety zones violate their right to free speech. In 2008, US District Judge Joseph Tauro rejected their request and they filed the most recent appeal.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the law does not infringe on protestors' free speech rights and applies to all protestors no matter their viewpoint. The law is described as "content-neutral," reported the Boston Globe. The ruling also stated that the law "represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety."
"For too long, patients and staff had to endure in-your-face screaming and harassment just to get to doctor's appointments," Angus McQuilken, vice president of public affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe in 2008 after the original suit was filed. "This 35-foot zone is more than reasonable."
Media Resources: Boston Globe 2/21/08, 7/10/09; Feminist Daily Newswire 2/26/08
No comments:
Post a Comment