Bart Stupak responded over the weekend to the GWU study, first reported here, that his amendment to the House health care bill would over time end coverage of abortion services. He takes the “that’s not specifically stated in the language” approach, apparently unaware of the phrase “actions have consequences”:

The idea that insurers will stop providing abortion services because of the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment is nothing more than speculation. There is no language in this amendment that in any way prohibits private health insurance companies from offering these services.

To the contrary, the amendment clearly states, “nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.” The language in Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts is completely consistent with Hyde language, which in its 30 years of existence has not inhibited private health insurers from offering abortion services. There is no reason to believe a continuation of this policy would suddenly change that.

It should also be pointed out that the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan, with more than 8 million members, does not allow abortion coverage. Yet the companies that offer abortion free plans to federal employees also offer plans with abortion coverage to private individuals. Given insurance companies are already offering separate plans with and without abortion coverage it seems unlikely it will be a significant hardship to continue to do so on the Exchange.

This is purely an ignorant statement. 8 million members on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, and the 22 million or so of child-bearing age on Medicaid, would be added to the nearly 30 million on the exchange. Pretty soon you’re talking about a significant portion of the country. And that number is set to expand, as the exchanges allow more and more individuals and groups to participate. Stupak may not understand the concept of the “tipping point” or how insurance works, but clearly, once enough people are in the exchange and walled off from abortion services coverage, insurance companies will gradually phase out that coverage entirely. That’s the word from the experts, and I’d go with them over someone opposed to choice trying to reassure everyone that he’s not being punitive.

Mike Johanns and Orrin Hatch, on the other hand, claimed on Saturday that the exchanges would still allow abortion coverage:

JOHANNS: Senantor Hatch, let me just interject something here because I think this is a very important point to make following up on what you just say. Some say that a person would never want to purchase a separate rider to cover abortions. Just won’t happen, they say.

But they misunderstand what the Stupak language actually allows, so let me be clear about this.

If a woman wants her health insurance plan to provide elective abortion services, she does have the choice to purchase a health insurance plan that provides that on the exchange — she just has to pay for it with her own money. Am I correct in that interpretation, or have I misunderstood?

HATCH: That’s correct.

That’s incorrect.

If one woman gets a subsidy and buys a plan on the exchange, that plan cannot offer abortion coverage to anyone to which it sells. That’s the essence of the amendment, the idea that money is fungible. And because there would be guaranteed issue on the exchange, there’s no way to know beforehand that all customers would be subsidy-free. And high numbers of those purchasing on the exchange, at least at first, would be receiving subsidies – maybe 85%. It’s just an out-and-out lie to suggest that anyone on the exchange could get an insurance policy that covers abortion, under the Stupak language.