Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

Posted on May 26, 2017 by Stacey S.

The Congressional Budget Office just released its scoring of “Trumpcare.” As anyone with half a wit about them presumed, it’s not favorable. And it’s not a good look for the GOP. Twenty-three million Americans stand to lose their health care coverage over a 10-year period. Others, with chronic illnesses and preexisting conditions, would pay much, much more for health care OR lose it altogether. But hey, at least rich, healthy people would be OK and premiums for some will drop in price simply because the plans cover less. Tell me again how this is a win for the majority of Americans? The health and welfare of MILLIONS of people are being sacrificed so the wealthy can have even MORE of a financial advantage? (WaPo)

Also in the headlines re: “Trumpcare Is Astronomically Bad”: “GOP health-care bill could cost women $1,000 more per month for ‘maternity’ insurance coverage — and even more when they have kids.” And again I’ll remind you, this is all being done so rich people can be more rich. Please don’t ever forget that important fact. (CNBC)

Not only should the left NOT abandon so-called “identity politics,” women of color should lead the identity politics movement. OUR issues represent the future direction of progressive politics! (Salon)

Why does the gender pay gap persist? Motherhood. (NY Times)

Planned Parenthood Arizona allowed an Allure Magazine writer to spend three days following staff and patients at our Maryvale clinic in Phoenix serving Title X and Medicaid patients. Women’s stories are so powerful. (Allure)

Meanwhile, Iowa has cut Planned Parenthood off from federal Medicaid reimbursements and we are being forced to close four clinics there. So disappointing and disheartening for the people who rely on our care. (Mother Jones)

If you thought 45’s administration couldn’t get any crueler, buckle up. The budget he released earlier this week would cut off food for poor people who have too many kids. So let’s put this into perspective. They want to make it harder to prevent pregnancy by eliminating poor people’s access to Planned Parenthood by cutting us off from federal Medicaid dollars. They want to make it impossible to abort a pregnancy a woman does not want or cannot afford. And then if you have the misfortune of being economically disadvantaged but have multiple children, they want to starve them to death. Wow. Could these people BE any more pro-life? (WaPo)

Bottom Line: The budget is a slap in the face, particularly to black women. (Black Women’s Health Imperative)

The administration is cool with wasting $277 million on abstinence-only education though — despite tons of evidence it’s ineffective! (Bustle)

There’s Been a Huge Increase in Campus Sex Assaults. Why?! (The Daily Beast)

Danielle Ofri, a physician at Bellevue Hospital in New York, wrote a terrific piece for Slate about the history of our broken health care system and how times and opinions about health care being a basic human right in this country are a’changing. Universal health care, here we come? (Slate)

The GOP attacks on Planned Parenthood in Iowa are hitting low-income women especially hard. (Salon)

For more than 10 years, women around the world have had access to online abortion. It’s time for the U.S. to catch up. (HuffPo)

We’ve said it a million times and we’re going to continue to say it as the evidence mounts: Federally qualified health centers CANNOT step in seamlessly to provide the care Planned Parenthood does. Our absence would harm millions of people for the foreseeable future. To quote the great Beyonce, we are IRREPLACEABLE. (Guttmacher)

Even in a state as “blue” as California, abortion can be hard to come by for many women. (Rewire)

45’s administration has done everything under the sun to wage war against women’s health, our economic livelihoods, and our futures. (WaPo)

Let’s end this on a funny note. An anonymous “fetus” wrote a letter to Mick Mulvaney — 45’s penny-pinching budget director who thinks the rich should get to pay obscenely low taxes while “the poors” suffer without medical care and food stamps. Nothing like satire from the unborn! Ha! (Slate XX Factor)

The American Health Care Act, Act 2

Posted on May 22, 2017 by Rachel Port

It’s time to raise your voice.

When the House of Representatives failed to pass the American Health Care Act in March, we thought they would move on to other things. They had already faced the wrath of their constituents in town halls across the country, defending themselves against charges that they were taking people’s health care away.

But a promise is a promise, and the Republicans had promised their voters they would get rid of Obamacare. So they began to negotiate — only instead of negotiating with the moderates in their party and perhaps some Democrats, they chose to work with the tea party faction, who now call themselves, without irony, the Freedom Caucus — which had disparaged the original AHCA as “Obamacare-lite.” If the angry constituents packing town halls to capacity thought the first iteration of the AHCA was too extreme, what on earth made House Republicans think a Freedom Caucus makeover would produce a bill that would inspire less animosity than the first?

We must insist that our representatives remember that health care is a matter of life and death.

So Tom MacArthur, a supposedly moderate Republican who makes Ronald Reagan look liberal, and Mark Meadows, the Freedom Caucus leader who makes Reagan look like a full-blown socialist, hammered out a deal. The tea party objection to the AHCA was that it didn’t get rid of the ACA’s regulations on insurance companies — such as barring insurers from charging more money to women, older patients, or patients with preexisting conditions, or requiring them to cover essential services like preventive health care without cost to patients, emergency services, prescription drugs, and prenatal care. MacArthur and Meadows’ supposed compromise allows states to apply for waivers to opt out of these essential services, or to allow higher rates for those with preexisting conditions if they set up “high-risk pools.” MacArthur’s constituents were not pleased. Continue reading →

What’s in a Name: Repealing the Affordable Care Act

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Rachel Port

Supporters drop off petitions and rally at Rep. Martha McSally’s Tucson office, March 15, 2017

As this post goes to press, word has come that Speaker Paul Ryan has pulled the American Health Care Act, being unable to muster enough votes to pass it. So we have escaped that disaster, and it appears no attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act will proceed in the near future. But the fight is not over. Aspects of this bill will come up in other forms and we will have to be vigilant. But this is a victory for activism, so many thanks to all of you who made phone calls, demonstrated, told your stories, and reminded the Republicans that destroying something is not the same as governing.

So as you read this, realize what we have escaped, and what we need to watch out for as we proceed.

People were going to die. But the free market would have triumphed.

Republicans called it Obamacare, and used that name as a slur to run against President Obama in 2012. It didn’t win that race for them, but there are enough people in this country for whom the name Obama is enough to damn a program. One woman, whose son lost his job and had his monthly insurance premium fall from $567 to $88, attributes that decrease to the tax credits in Trump and Ryan’s new American Health Care Act. You know, the bill that never passed. In actuality, her son became eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare — the Affordable Care Act — which is still the law.

Paul Ryan and his cronies in the House of Representatives hated the Affordable Care Act before it was written. They hated it even more when it passed and more than that when it was implemented.

What did they hate about it? Continue reading →