By Steve
Ahlquist in Rhode
Island’s Future
 |
| This is not the first time Raimondo has played bait-and-switch with voters and acted the opposite of the way she campaigned. |
When
Governor Gina Raimondo signed the budget on Tuesday, she
officially signed into law language that stands as the most extreme
anti-abortion language passed in Rhode Island in two decades.
And because it
was slipped into the budget as part of the language that codifies HealthSource RI, the
state’s highly successful Obamacare insurance exchange, and not submitted as a
bill, this new law was passed with no legislative debate and no chance for any
input from the public.
Shockingly,
this end run around democracy and against reproductive rights came from Rhode
Island’s first woman governor, Gina Raimondo, who sailed to victory with the
endorsement of Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood,
with the help of a a putatively Democratic majority legislature.
How
did this happen?
Former
Governor Lincoln Chafee, a stalwart defender of reproductive rights, vetoed a “Choose Life” license plate bill, a bill that would
have split the money for the vanity plate between the state and right wing
Christian “abortion counseling” centers that offer false hope to women dealing
with crisis pregnancies. Rhode Island stands as one of the few states to have
defeated these license plates.
Simply
put, in Rhode Island, reproductive rights are only controversial among a small
group of right wing activists, fronted by the Rhode Island State Right to
Life Committee and the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Providence, who use the issue to advance their narrow political
objectives.
It
was this small group of activists that helped concoct two lawsuits, with the
help of the right wing religious advocacy group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Doe v Burwell and Howe v Burwell were brought
against HealthSource RI because there no plans offered on the state’s health
exchange that did not cover abortion.
Doe,
who chose to remain anonymous because of his HIV+ status, claimed that he was
unable, due to his religious beliefs, to contribute money to any health plan
that covered abortion, and that his needs as an HIV+ man meant that waiting
until 2017 for the one plan that does not cover abortion mandated under Federal
law was not practical.
In addition to his health concerns, Doe claimed he was
liable for fines fines levied against him for not selecting one of the plans
currently available on the exchange.
The
government’s reaction to the Doe lawsuit was swift: They completely caved. The
state agreed to dismiss Doe’s fines, enroll him into a special plan that
satisfied his moral objections to abortion, and require that the Rhode Island Office of Health Insurance Commissioner issue
a mandate that there be a plan offered on the state’s health exchange that did
not cover abortion at every tier of coverage.
In
return, the ADF withdrew their lawsuit.
Ten days later, on May
29, Governor Raimondo added the agreed upon language to her proposed budget as
an amendment.
Under
federal law, at least one plan that did not cover abortion had to be made
available on all state exchanges by 2017. The settlement the state agreed to
went far beyond that mandate.
In
Rhode Island, adding new language through the budget process means that there
will be no opportunity for public comment or meaningful public debate. The
budget is submitted by the governor and re-crafted by the RI House of Representatives in a process that is
conducted mostly behind the scenes.
John Marion, executive
director ofCommon Cause RI, a government accountability group, has
called it “transactional politics.” When the budget comes to the House
floor for a vote, specific parts can be debated by legislators, and amendments
can be added, but the public gets no chance to directly comment.
The
language Raimondo added is problematic for businesses. James Rhodes, director of public policy & government
relations at Planned Parenthood Southern New England,
asked, “How does a small employer, whether a religious organization or not,
claim a religious exemption from covering abortion? Do they have a form to fill
out to submit to the Office of Health Insurance Commissioner to declare their
objection in order to get a new plan variation from an insurer? Is there any
requirement to notify insured employees that their insurance does not cover
this service, which is standard coverage in the small group market?”
The
new language provided no process by which employers declared their objections
and no process by which employees were to be notified of their employers
decisions. This is important because a woman might think her health plan covers
abortion, only to find out that her employer has decided, on personal religious
grounds, not to cover the procedure without informing the employees.
“It
is worth emphasizing that the federal health care law already imposes
significant restrictions on abortion access through health care
exchanges,” Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU. “The additional burdens that passage of this
budget article could impose, particularly on unwitting employees, is deeply
troubling.”
As
I tweeted at the time, “Gina Raymond’s budget addition may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom across Rhode Island.”
Immediately
after Raimondo’s amendment was submitted, rumors began to swirl that the
language was inserted as some sort of backroom deal to save HealthSource RI at
the expense of women’s reproductive rights. Indeed, Speaker of the House and
right wing Democrat Nicholas Mattiello had been vocal
about his desire to turn the state health exchange over to the federal government.
Language
that limited women’s access to abortion was rumored to be the price paid for
keeping control of the health exchange in Rhode Island. However, it has been
impossible to source this rumor. Rather than being concerned with limiting
women’s abortion access, Mattiello’s public statements were all about the high
cost of administering the health exchange on the state level.
For
instance, Mattiello said that, “he would not have signed on
[to including HealthSource RI in the budget] unless HealthSource administrators
had significantly reduced their cost projections to the point where the
surcharge could be “at or below” the level it would be if the state handed the
exchange over to the federal government…”
On
the House floor, during the strangely curtailed debate on the budget, an
amendment was approved that somewhat mitigated the damage done by Raimondo’s
abortion language. This new language, crafted with the help of Planned
Parenthood and the ACLU, required any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their
employee health plan, to allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and
select any other plan, paying any additional costs.
This
makes Rhode Island the first state to build language into its state exchange
that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion
coverage. A minor victory, considering that this imposes additional health care
costs on women. If an employer elects not to cover abortion in their health
plans, women pay additional fees out of pocket.
Additionally,
women may find themselves in a difficult spot when it comes to dealing with
employers who choose not to cover abortion. Opting out of the employer’s health
plan may serve as a signal to employers that the employee is pro-choice. This
may have an effect on a woman’s ability to secure raises, promotions or other
workplace benefits if an employer chooses to act on this assumption in a biased
or bigoted manner.
The
Planned Parenthood amendment was supported by an unlikely coalition of
legislators, including long time pro-choice Representative Edie Ajello and longtime abortion and LGBTQ rights foe
Representative Arthur Corvese.
But behind the scenes,
no one was happy with the compromise. A source confided to me that Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life,
Providence Catholic Diocese lobbyist Bernard Healey and
conservative Democratic Representative John DeSimone, were
railing against the compromise language during last minute backroom
negotiations.
The
amended amendment passed and the entire budget passed unanimously and in record time.
After
the budget passed the House, both sides declared victory.
Bracy
explained in a newsletter that the “victory” was “the fruit of
six years of intense legislative, political, and legal battle.” (Bracy did not
explain how the seeds of this victory were planted a year before Obamacare
became law.) Bracy further explained, or rather, did not explain, that, “Due to
the complexity of Obamacare, and its implementation in Rhode Island, neither the
media nor our opponents at Planned Parenthood and in the pro-abortion caucus of
the General Assembly, yet appear to understand the extent of our victory.”
Bracy
promises to explain the completeness of his victory after the Governor signs
the budget.
Meanwhile,
James Rhodes of Planned Parenthood claimed partial victory, dinging Raimondo for choosing
“to widely expand the number of plans that do not cover abortion beyond federal
minimum standards” while doing “nothing to protect abortion access for
employees of small businesses in Rhode Island.”
Rhodes
went on to say, “In the wake of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, we were
surprised the Governor did not seek protections for employee access to
comprehensive reproductive health care. It is clear that leaders in the House
and Senate recognized this budget loophole.
The passed budget
includes an invaluable amendment that will allow employees of small businesses
that claim an objection to covering abortion, to enroll in the HealthSource RI
Full Employee Choice program.”
In
the end, the right of some women to access reproductive health care has been
eroded in favor of the fake right of employers to not provide such healthcare
on religious grounds. For her part, the Governor’s office has refused repeated
requests for clarification.
Given
the transactional and punitive nature of RI politics, no one in the legislature
seems willing to go on record about this debacle.
This
new assault on women’s rights is the spawn of the odious SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, based on the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA), writ small a thousand times. I’ve argued before that it’s past time to repeal or at least seriously amend Rhode
Island’s RFRA, and just recently the ACLU seems to have reached the same conclusion.
Meanwhile,
those who supported Gina Raymond’s bid for Governor of Rhode Island might want
to seriously reconsider their support. She has revealed herself as no champion
of reproductive rights.