The Queering of Health Reform

Katherine Franke

Just as it is wrong to make better health care available only to those who can afford it, so too, it is wrong to make coverage contingent on a life that looks like the Brady Bunch. Good health care should not depend on wealth or hetero-patriarchy.

The relative silence of a queer –
or even a gay – voice in the health care reform debate of the last six
months is confounding.  As someone who spent my 20’s and 30’s dealing
with close friends and colleagues dying of AIDS, who watched many
people become impoverished by their disease, and saw first hand how
pre-existing conditions clauses rendered health insurance coverage
useless when it precluded any coverage for HIV-related care, it strikes
me that the lgbt community knows as well as any other group of people
why these reforms – including a public option – are necessary.

But
the implications of health care reform for the lgbt community extend
well-beyond HIV – because the employer-sponsored health insurance
regime we live with is, essentially and unavoidably, hetero-patriarchal
– it assumes the nuclear family as the typical unit needing and
deserving insurance coverage.

nuclear_family

By insuring not only the employee but his
spouse and minor dependents as well, our employment-centered health
insurance paradigm imagines a male employee/head of household with a
wife (who is not employed and therefore does not have her own
insurance) and kids, all of whom were covered incident to the male
adult’s employment. The family wage brought with it family benefits.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Rendered invisible, or at best marginal, in these policy choices
around health insurance are those of us who cannot or will not get
health insurance on account of a relationship to a husband or father
who brings home both the bacon and a health insurance card.  But gaying
the story doesn’t quite fix the problem.  Marriage equality advocates’
demands that same-sex couples be allowed to marry so that we too can
get on the insurance policies of our well-employed partners somehow
fails to get at the underlying problem of what is at bottom a health
care delivery system that presupposes the nuclear family.

A queer approach to the issue would question the norm of a health
care delivery system that privileges those people who are willing
and/or able to organize their lives into a traditional household, with
a head who is working a good job that includes health care coverage for
all the rest in the family.  Just as it is wrong to make better health
care available only to those who can afford it, so too, the queer argument
goes, it is wrong to make health care coverage turn on one’s ability to
line up your life like the Brady Bunch.  Good health care should have
nothing to do with wealth or conformance with hetero-patriarchy.

Analysis Politics

The 2016 Republican Platform Is Riddled With Conservative Abortion Myths

Ally Boguhn

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the Republican platform, which relies on a series of falsehoods about reproductive health care.

Republicans voted to ratify their 2016 platform this week, codifying what many deem one of the most extreme platforms ever accepted by the party.

“Platforms are traditionally written by and for the party faithful and largely ignored by everyone else,” wrote the New York Times‘ editorial board Monday. “But this year, the Republicans are putting out an agenda that demands notice.”

“It is as though, rather than trying to reconcile Mr. Trump’s heretical views with conservative orthodoxy, the writers of the platform simply opted to go with the most extreme version of every position,” it continued. “Tailored to Mr. Trump’s impulsive bluster, this document lays bare just how much the G.O.P. is driven by a regressive, extremist inner core.”

Tucked away in the 66-page document accepted by Republicans as their official guide to “the Party’s principles and policies” are countless resolutions that seem to back up the Times‘ assertion that the platform is “the most extreme” ever put forth by the party, including: rolling back marriage equalitydeclaring pornography a “public health crisis”; and codifying the Hyde Amendment to permanently block federal funding for abortion.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the platform, which the Susan B. Anthony List deemed the “Most Pro-life Platform Ever” in a press release upon the GOP’s Monday vote at the convention. “The Republican platform has always been strong when it comes to protecting unborn children, their mothers, and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans,” said the organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement. “The platform ratified today takes that stand from good to great.”  

Operation Rescue, an organization known for its radical tactics and links to violence, similarly declared the platform a “victory,” noting its inclusion of so-called personhood language, which could ban abortion and many forms of contraception. “We are celebrating today on the streets of Cleveland. We got everything we have asked for in the party platform,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, in a statement posted to the group’s website.

But what stands out most in the Republicans’ document is the series of falsehoods and myths relied upon to push their conservative agenda. Here are just a few of the most egregious pieces of misinformation about abortion to be found within the pages of the 2016 platform:

Myth #1: Planned Parenthood Profits From Fetal Tissue Donations

Featured in multiple sections of the Republican platform is the tired and repeatedly debunked claim that Planned Parenthood profits from fetal tissue donations. In the subsection on “protecting human life,” the platform says:

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

Later in the document, under a section titled “Preserving Medicare and Medicaid,” the platform again asserts that abortion providers are selling “the body parts of aborted children”—presumably again referring to the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood:

We respect the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.

The platform appears to reference the widely discredited videos produced by anti-choice organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) as part of its smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. The videos were deceptively edited, as Rewire has extensively reported. CMP’s leader David Daleiden is currently under federal indictment for tampering with government documents in connection with obtaining the footage. Republicans have nonetheless steadfastly clung to the group’s claims in an effort to block access to reproductive health care.

Since CMP began releasing its videos last year, 13 state and three congressional inquiries into allegations based on the videos have turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund—which has endorsed Hillary Clinton—called the Republicans’ inclusion of CMP’s allegation in their platform “despicable” in a statement to the Huffington Post. “This isn’t just an attack on Planned Parenthood health centers,” said Laguens. “It’s an attack on the millions of patients who rely on Planned Parenthood each year for basic health care. It’s an attack on the brave doctors and nurses who have been facing down violent rhetoric and threats just to provide people with cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams.”

Myth #2: The Supreme Court Struck Down “Commonsense” Laws About “Basic Health and Safety” in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

In the section focusing on the party’s opposition to abortion, the GOP’s platform also reaffirms their commitment to targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. According to the platform:

We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.

The idea that TRAP laws, such as those struck down by the recent Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health, are solely for protecting women and keeping them safe is just as common among conservatives as it is false. However, as Rewire explained when Paul Ryan agreed with a nearly identical claim last week about Texas’ clinic regulations, “the provisions of the law in question were not about keeping anybody safe”:

As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in the opinion declaring them unconstitutional, “When directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.”

All the provisions actually did, according to Breyer on behalf of the Court majority, was put “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion,” and “constitute an undue burden on abortion access.”

Myth #3: 20-Week Abortion Bans Are Justified By “Current Medical Research” Suggesting That Is When a Fetus Can Feel Pain

The platform went on to point to Republicans’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a piece of anti-choice legislation already passed in several states that, if approved in Congress, would create a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks based on junk science claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point in pregnancy:

Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version.

Major medical groups and experts, however, agree that a fetus has not developed to the point where it can feel pain until the third trimester. According to a 2013 letter from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” which begins around the 28th week of pregnancy. A 2010 review of the scientific evidence on the issue conducted by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists similarly found “that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior” to 24 weeks’ gestation.

Doctors who testify otherwise often have a history of anti-choice activism. For example, a letter read aloud during a debate over West Virginia’s ultimately failed 20-week abortion ban was drafted by Dr. Byron Calhoun, who was caught lying about the number of abortion-related complications he saw in Charleston.

Myth #4: Abortion “Endangers the Health and Well-being of Women”

In an apparent effort to criticize the Affordable Care Act for promoting “the notion of abortion as healthcare,” the platform baselessly claimed that abortion “endangers the health and well-being” of those who receive care:

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that abortion is safe. Research shows that a first-trimester abortion carries less than 0.05 percent risk of major complications, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and “pose[s] virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.”

There is similarly no evidence to back up the GOP’s claim that abortion endangers the well-being of women. A 2008 study from the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, an expansive analysis on current research regarding the issue, found that while those who have an abortion may experience a variety of feelings, “no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”

As is the case for many of the anti-abortion myths perpetuated within the platform, many of the so-called experts who claim there is a link between abortion and mental illness are discredited anti-choice activists.

Myth #5: Mifepristone, a Drug Used for Medical Abortions, Is “Dangerous”

Both anti-choice activists and conservative Republicans have been vocal opponents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) March update to the regulations for mifepristone, a drug also known as Mifeprex and RU-486 that is used in medication abortions. However, in this year’s platform, the GOP goes a step further to claim that both the drug and its general approval by the FDA are “dangerous”:

We believe the FDA’s approval of Mifeprex, a dangerous abortifacient formerly known as RU-486, threatens women’s health, as does the agency’s endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician’s recommendation. We support cutting federal and state funding for entities that endanger women’s health by performing abortions in a manner inconsistent with federal or state law.

Studies, however, have overwhelmingly found mifepristone to be safe. In fact, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals says mifepristone “is safer than acetaminophen,” aspirin, and Viagra. When the FDA conducted a 2011 post-market study of those who have used the drug since it was approved by the agency, they found that more than 1.5 million women in the U.S. had used it to end a pregnancy, only 2,200 of whom had experienced an “adverse event” after.

The platform also appears to reference the FDA’s approval of making emergency contraception such as Plan B available over the counter, claiming that it too is a threat to women’s health. However, studies show that emergency contraception is safe and effective at preventing pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization, side effects are “uncommon and generally mild.”

News Abortion

Health Insurer Kaiser Distances Itself From Employees’ Anti-Choice Activities

Nicole Knight Shine

Active since 2014, if not earlier, Kaiser for Life appears to oppose what it describes as "late-term" abortions performed at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California.

Kaiser Permanente is disavowing an anti-choice group called Kaiser for Life, telling Rewire that the $60-billion company wasn’t aware of the group, apparently comprised of Kaiser Permanente doctors and patients, and that the company is “not lending our name to it.”

The group Kaiser for Life is taking part in the July 23 summit for Californians for Life, which opposes abortion rights. Appearing on a list of “Pro-Life Doctors, Nurses, and Medical Clinics,” Kaiser for Life is described as being made up of “doctors, nurses, patients, staff, and administrators who want to end abortion, helping both women and babies THRIVE.”

Kaiser Permanente has used the word “thrive” to market itself for more than a decade.

Active since 2014, if not earlier, Kaiser for Life appears to oppose what it describes as “late-term” abortions performed at Kaiser Permanente facilities in Sacramento and elsewhere, according to Sacramento Pro-Life News.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

A representative from Kaiser for Life didn’t respond to an inquiry about the group by press time.

A Kaiser Permanente spokesperson told Rewire that the Oakland-based health-care provider’s policies permit employees to take part in political activities, as long as workers are off the clock, off premises, and avoid the appearance of representing their employer.

Asked whether participating in Kaiser for Life might violate company policy, the spokesperson would only say that the nonprofit has no immediate knowledge of the organization or contact with it.

A Kaiser Permanente logo can be seen accompanying a brief 2014 story about Kaiser for Life by Sacramento Pro-Life News.

“Kaiser Permanente is committed to providing the full range of comprehensive, integrated women’s health services for our members,” the spokesperson noted in an email.

The spokesperson said “elective” pregnancy terminations are performed at some Kaiser Permanente facilities, “usually as a result of complications or multiple fetal anomalies,” while other abortion services are provided through Planned Parenthood and Family Planning Associates.

Anti-choice advocacy by doctors and nurses isn’t unheard of, and the Californians for Life website lists participating groups like the Association of Pro-Life Physicians and California Nurses for Ethical Standards, which “promotes respect” for the “preborn.”

Conversely, anti-choice groups routinely target companies that, among other things, allow voluntary employee-donation programs to Planned Parenthood. Bank of America, as Rewire reported, was subject to an anti-choice boycott late last year.