The Supreme Court will hear a constitutional claim against the Affordable Care Act in 2012.  Arguments will primarily focus on the law’s individual mandate requirement and accompanying penalties for noncompliance, but will also address the planned Medicaid expansion.  The court decision, expected by June 2012, could have several different outcomes: the law is constitutional as it stands; the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law remains; or the individual mandate is unconstitutional and so integral to the ACA that the rest of the law crumbles.  Alternatively, the court may decide it cannot make a determination until April 2015, when individuals will be first become subject to penalties for not having health insurance and the case becomes “ripe” enough to hear.

Raising Women’s Voices position is one of support for the benefits of the ACA.

More: http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/raisingwomensvoices-blog/2011/11/15/health-care-reform-goes-to-the-supreme-court.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-schriock/straight-talk-keep-family_b_1099381.html

But we can do better. The point of OWS is the blatant disregard of unbridled capitalism. Capitalism isn’t wrong, but there’s unfortunately no maximum threshold to greed. 100 million is literally not enough if you can have 200 million.

What does that mean for healthcare?

There’s still a struggle for healthcare and healthcare for the least among us, usually poor women and children. How do we protect what’s already there and then expand what towards what we need? Basic health is unavailable to many women in this country, yet the issue on budget committees is more about how to cut entitlement programs rather than defence or increasing taxation.

The solution? It’s not simple. It has to do with voting, obviously. But not just voting for new politicians clear across the board, but voting with our dollars as well (what little you may have). Power is with the corporations and not the people. They in turn feed off of our dollars.

What would happen if we valued different things as a nation as a whole. That women’s health care and children’s health care were priorities rather than burdens? What would we individually need to change with regards to our perspectives?

Is it really feasible to be on the pursuit of the AMerican Dream even if it means only 1% of us achieve it? I think there’s a change happening in our country. It may have publicly started with with OWS, but it ultimately begins and end with you and me. What are we going to change with ourselves first and then our communities and then beyond?

“Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this opportunity. As a mother of five children, when I brought my baby, youngest baby, number five home from the hospital, that week my oldest baby was turning six years old. The birth of a baby is such a jubilant occasion, and women’s health is essential to the health of families, of raising our children in a way that has respect for all of them.

“It’s very interesting that we are taking this bill up now when the number one priority is the creation of jobs, and once again, we come to the floor of the House with a major distraction that ain’t going nowhere in order to cater to an extreme agenda of the Republican Majority.

“The American people want us to take up jobs. They want us to take up the American Jobs Act, which [two-thirds] of the American people say they want us to consider. It would create nearly 2 million jobs. Or we could vote on the China currency legislation, which would [create] 1 million jobs and has the support of the majority of the Members in this body including 61 cosponsors from the Republican side of the aisle.

“But again, we’re instead pursuing the Republicans’ ideological agenda, forcing us to re-litigate a very divisive issue. Every woman in America should be very concerned about this assault on women’s health. Let us begin the debate with a very clear understanding of the facts. The federal funding of abortion is already, and has been for a long time, prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

“Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act prohibits the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. That is why the Catholic Health Association said, ‘We are confident that [the health care reform] does not allow federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.’

“I repeat, the Catholic Health Association said, ‘We are confident that [the health care reform] does not allow federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.’

“This bill is a radical departure from existing law. It represents an unprecedented and radical assault on a woman’s access to the full range of health care services. For the first time, this bill places restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance.

“As a result of this bill, millions of women using Health Insurance Exchanges are likely to no longer have access to insurance policies that cover all reproductive services.

“Furthermore, supporters of this bill falsely claim that this bill is simply a restatement of the Stupak amendment considered by the House in 2009. It is not. This bill is very different from the Stupak amendment – it appears that health care providers could withhold care for women with life-threatening conditions. In other words, a woman could be dying on the floor of the hospital, and when you vote for this bill, you will be saying the caregivers would not have [inaudible] to treat that woman and keep her from dying.

“The Obama Administration has come out strongly against this legislation, rightly saying it ‘intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.’

“So just a few points again. Public funding of abortion is prohibited under the Hyde amendment, except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother. The Catholic Health Association says we are confident that the bill does not, the Affordable Care Act does not allow federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike. And third, it is not the Stupak amendment.

“This legislation is bad public policy and it is the wrong priority for Congress. It is an assault on women’s health, and women should know that. It prevents them from using their own dollars to buy their own private insurance, should they be part of an exchange.

“I urge my colleagues to vote no and implore the Republican majority to turn their attention to what this country needs, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs.”

The Affordable Care Act, which became law last March, no longer permits insurance companies from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits such as hospital stays, nor can they deny coverage to any child under the age of 19 due to a preexisting condition.

The Affordable Care Act means that all health insurance plans must cover preventative services such as contraception, mammograms, etc., without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Couple that with the extension for children living at home to remai on plans till 26, and this translated into thousands of dollars of savings in medical expenses.

Women are the greatest utilizers of the health care system, as a 2010 report from the Commonwealth Fund tells us. They live longer than men, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has well documented. In fact, women live three decades beyond their reproductive years.

Women also suffer from chronic diseases at a higher rate than men, diseases such as autoimmune disorders, arthritis, depression, and osteoporosis, and these disorders result in higher rates of disability and attendant care.

How we change insurance coverage, access and affordability, whether public or private, will determine whether women receive the care they need.

More from this article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-m-mazure/affordable-care-act-women_b_929305.html

But let’s try to put it into perspective. Is this a bad idea? no, it would make contraception available to all women if they so choose. And no, this is not a case of, “only women who have frequent and risky sexual appetites,” need birth control, as some conservative like to put it.

Birth control isn’t a method to enable harmful lifestyles, yet it does not go hand in hand with this behavior either.

But can the country afford it? For the most part even our neighbors to the north Canada pay for their contraceptives even though they have ‘universal’ healthcare.

The loss of funding won’t cripple Planned Parenthood, however, it is inevitable that healthy care for the least among us will be affected negatively. The poorest of women will be forced out of important healthcare provisions.

The question is, what does Daniels and his Republican compatriots have in store to replace what are essentially cuts to health for women?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/29/daniels-to-sign-controversial-planned-parenthood-bill/