By Anna Gorman and Jenny Gold Kaiser Health News
WWR Article Summary (tl;dr) Discussion of health care shows some signs of becoming more open and bipartisan, perhaps bringing more women's perspectives to the debate. But women are hardly speaking in unison.
Kaiser Health News
Women, in particular, have a lot at stake in the fight over the future of health care.
Not only do many depend on insurance coverage for maternity care and contraception, but they also are struck more often by such diseases as autoimmune conditions, osteoporosis, breast cancer and depression. They are more likely to be poor and depend on Medicaid, and to live longer and depend on Medicare. And it commonly falls to them to plan health care and coverage for their families.
Yet in recent months, as leaders in Washington discussed the future of American health care, women were not always allowed in the room. To put together the Senate's initial version of a bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appointed 12 colleagues, all male.
Some members of Congress made it clear they don't see issues like childbirth as a male concern. Two Republicans wondered aloud during the House debate this spring whether men should pay for maternity or prenatal coverage.
Two of the three Republican senators who killed the repeal bill were women. Though Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., got most of the attention, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voiced objections all along, including to plans to suspend Planned Parenthood funding. And for their opposition they were pilloried, even threatened, by members of their party.
Republican repeal efforts are stalled, for now, and the course for America's health care system remains to be decided.
Many of the programs women depend on are still targets, especially Medicaid, which pays for about half of U.S. births. Some programs are already shrinking under the Republican-controlled government, for example, federal funding for teenage pregnancy prevention and research. States have been empowered to cut Title X family planning programs.
Discussion of health care shows some signs of becoming more open and bipartisan, perhaps bringing more women's perspectives to the debate.
But women are hardly speaking in unison. "Women's health" means very different things to different people, based on their backgrounds and ages. A 20-year-old may care more about how to get free contraception, while a 30-year-old may be more concerned about maternity coverage. Women in their 50s might be worried about access to mammograms, and those in their 60s may fear not being able to afford insurance before they go on Medicare at 65.
Many older women vividly recall when abortion in the U.S. was performed dangerously and illicitly. Some fought hard for the right to choose abortion and were affirmed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Still, nearly 45 years later, the nation remains at war over abortion, and women are on both sides of that battle. To get a richer sense of women's viewpoints on health care as the national debate continues, we asked several around the country and across generations to for their thoughts and experiences.
Patricia Loftman, 68 New York City Loftman spent 30 years as a certified nurse-midwife at Harlem Hospital Center and remembers treating women coming in after having botched abortions.
Some didn't survive.
"It was a really bad time," Loftman said. "Women should not have to die just because they don't want to have a child."
When the Supreme Court ruled that women had a constitutional right to abortions, Loftman remembers feeling relieved. Now she's angry and scared about the prospect of stricter controls. "Those of us who lived through it just cannot imagine going back," she said.
Loftman also recalls clearly when the birth control pill became legal in the 1960s. She was in nursing school in upstate New York and glad to have another, more convenient option for contraception. Already, women were gaining more independence, and the Pill "just added to that sense of increased freedom and choice."
To her, conservatives' attack on Planned Parenthood, which already has closed many clinics in several states, is frustrating because the organization also provides primary and reproductive health care to many poor women who wouldn't be able to get it otherwise.
Now retired, Loftman is on the board of the American College of Nurse-Midwives and advocates for better care for minority women. "There continues to be a dramatic racial and ethnic disparity in the outcome of pregnancy and health for African-American women and women of color," she said.
Terrisa Bukovinac, 36 San Francisco Bukovinac calls herself a passionate pro-lifer. As president of Pro-Life Future of San Francisco, she participates in marches and protests to demonstrate her opposition to abortion.
"Our preliminary goal is defunding Planned Parenthood," she said. "That is crucial to our mission." As much as the organization promotes itself as a place where people get primary care and contraception, "abortion is their primary business model," Bukovinac said.
She said the vast majority of abortions are not justifiable and that she supports a woman's right to an abortion only in cases that threaten the patient's life. "We are opposed to what we consider elective abortions," she said. Bukovinac said she also tries to help women in crisis get financial assistance so they don't end their pregnancies just because they can't afford to have a baby. "We have to help women obtain the resources necessary to sustain their pre-born children's lives," she said.
She supports women's access to health insurance and health care, both of which are costly for many. "Certainly the more people who are covered, the better it is" for both the mother and baby.
Bukovinac, however, is uninsured because she said the premiums are higher than she would typically pay for care. Self-employed in e-commerce, Bukovinac has a disorder that causes vertigo and ringing in the ear and spends about $300 a month on medication for that and for anxiety.
She doesn't know if the Affordable Care Act is to blame, but she said that before the law "I was able to afford health insurance and now I'm not."
Irma Castaneda, 49 Huntington Beach, Calif. Castaneda is a breast cancer survivor. She's been in remission for several years but still sees her oncologist annually and undergoes mammograms, ultrasounds and blood tests.
Castaneda, a teacher's aide for special-education students, is worried that Republicans may make insurance more expensive for people like her, with pre-existing conditions. "They could make our premiums go sky high," she said. "I didn't ask to get cancer."
Her family previously purchased a plan on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act exchange. But Castaneda said the plan had a high deductible, so she had to come up with a lot out-of-pocket before insurance paid out. "I was paying medical bills up the yin-yang," she said. "I felt like I was paying so much for this crappy plan."
Then, about a year ago, Castaneda's husband was injured at work and the family's income dropped in half. Now they rely on Medicaid, the government program for low-income people, until he starts working again. Becoming eligible for Medicaid was a "blessing in disguise," she said, because it meant fewer out-of-pocket expenses for health care.
Whatever the coverage, Castaneda said, she needs high-quality health care. "God forbid I get sick again," she said. It's essential for her teenage daughter, too, she said. Her daughter is transgender and receives special physical and mental health care.
"Right now she is pretty lucky because there is coverage for her," Castaneda said. "With the Trump stuff, what's going to happen then?"
Celene Wong, 39 Boston The choice was agonizing for Wong. A few months into her pregnancy, she and her husband learned that her fetus had chromosomal abnormalities. The baby would have had severe special needs, she said.