H.R. 7 is a beauty, that would be Beauty with scare quotes around it. Here’s what Nevada Representatives, Hardy (R-Bundy Ranch), Amodei (R-NV2), and Heck (R-NV3) voted in favor of: [RC 45]
No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
Someone missed the message from the Hyde Amendment, there is NO federal funding for abortion procedures. But wait! It gets worse.
None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
No funds subsidized by federal monies may to applied to health care insurance which includes abortion procedures.
No health care service furnished–`(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or`(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment,may include abortion.
There can be no abortion procedures in any federal facility or by any doctor employed by the federal government.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
If a family or individual wants health insurance coverage which includes abortion services it must be purchased privately.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
Insurance companies are ‘perfectly free’ to draft and sell individual health insurance policies covering abortion procedures. For a price? Probably a hefty one?
The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–`(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or`(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Notice the big gap in this section! Only if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or is PHYSICALLY dangerous can an abortion be provided. A woman who is at serious risk for debilitating postpartum depression would be denied abortion procedures under the terms of this bill. We should drill down more deeply on this one, because this is the point at which the politicians are getting between the woman, her family, and her physician.
Postpartum depression is NOT a “mood swing,” and it’s not merely the old “baby blues” after delivery. There’s postpartum depression, which can be treacherous, and worse still in some cases the situation devolves into post partum psychosis. Evidently, the three male Representatives from Nevada aren’t all that concerned about the symptoms described by the Mayo Clinic, including: loss of appetite, insomnia, intense irritability and anger, overwhelming fatigue, feelings of shame/guilt/inadequacy, severe mood swings, difficulty bonding with the new baby, withdrawal from family and friends, and thoughts of harming self or the baby. The psychosis element includes confusion and disorientation, hallucinations and delusions, paranoia, and actual attempts to harm self or the infant.
However, the provisions of H.R. 7 would not consider the needs of a family in which the mother had previously been treated for postpartum depression (or psychosis for that matter) when it comes to a recommendation from the family doctor that should a pregnancy occur, then it should be terminated before the mother’s mental health issues worsen.
Let’s be clear, postpartum depression occurs in an estimated 9-16% of all postpartum women. Among women who have already experienced PPD after a previous pregnancy the odds of a relapse go up to 41%. [APA] We’re not speaking of small numbers here. As of the CDC’s last report, there were 3,932,181 births registered in the United States (2013). A quick resort to the calculator and we’re speaking of 353,896 women who are projected to have postpartum depression using the conservative estimate of 9%. And, yes, postpartum psychosis is rare, occuring in about 0.1% of all births, but that’s still 3,932 instances taking the 0.1% rate. [PPN] If a mother has a history of bipolar disorder or has had a previous psychotic episode there is a significant risk of postpartum psychosis, which unfortunately can lead to a 5% suicide rate and a 4% infanticide rate associated with the illness. [PPN]
It takes a bit of intelligence and sensitivity to think through the difference between the “baby blues” common in about 80% of perinatal women and the postpartum depression in up to 16%, or even postpartum psychosis at the 0.1% rate. Quite evidently, our male Representatives to the Congress of the United States are still stuck on the hackneyed and debunked myths; myths like “postpartum depression is rare,” or “PPD will go away on its own,” or “if you just stay positive you won’t get PPD,” or “if she’s not crying all the time it’s not PPD.” What makes the voting record all the more astonishing is that one of our Representatives is a health care professional who should know better.
Omitting the mental health component in the bill is tantamount to saying women’s perinatal mental health issues aren’t important, or women just use the “baby blues” to rationalize an unwanted child, or women and their physicians can’t be trusted to determine the best outcome for the family. Or, all of the above. And, yes – Nevada’s three male Representatives just said We’re All For A Government Big Enough To Control Every Woman’s Womb.