|
Silence8 -> domestic violence a 'preexisting condition' (3/3/2010 8:52:36 PM)
|
Here's part of the transcript domestic violence a 'preexisting condition'
So the unemployment situation sort of comes at women with domestic violence issues from these two different perspectives. And I applaud Senator Reid for pointing that out. The thing that I think—the next step that we have to make, now that he makes that connection, we must not decrease expenditures on violence-against-women programs. In fact, when the economy suffers, that’s when public policy, I think, requires that we increase services for women escaping violence.
AMY GOODMAN: During last week’s healthcare summit at Blair House that President Obama presided over, New York Congress member Louise Slaughter noted that domestic violence is considered a pre-existing condition in eight states across the country. This is what she said.
REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Pre-existing conditions absolutely has to go. It is cruel. It is capricious. And it is done only to enhance the bottom line. Eight states in this country right now have declared that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition, on the grounds, I assume, that if you’ve been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once, you might go around and do it again.
AMY GOODMAN: That was New York Congress member Louise Slaughter. Terry O’Neill, this is just astounding. Explain again what some health insurance companies consider—how they consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition.
TERRY O’NEILL: You know, I’ve never been able to get an explanation of why they do it. I assume it’s because it’s just an effort—it’s one more way of enhancing their bottom line. But it’s absolutely astonishing that—
AMY GOODMAN: That if a woman’s been—
TERRY O’NEILL: —a woman who has experienced—
AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead.
TERRY O’NEILL: She can be—right, she can be denied insurance completely, no health insurance available on the private market, if the insurance company says, “Oh, well, you’ve been a victim of domestic violence, therefore we’re not going to cover you at all.” And in eight states, the insurance company is permitted to say no coverage of anything. Right?
I don’t know where the insurance—I don’t know if they’re—I can’t imagine that there are statistical studies proving that somehow it is more expensive to insure a person who has been in a domestic violence situation. Clearly, this kind of pre-existing condition should be outlawed, must be outlawed immediately. And yeah, and I think that this is a recent phenomenon of insurance companies simply looking anywhere they can for profit. And this is one way they’ve done it. It’s completely outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at a report from ABC News, how they describe the latest “controversial abortion bill in Utah meant to prevent planned assaults on unborn children may have opened a loophole that could allow women to be charged with murder if their reckless behavior causes miscarriages.” And on that issue, I wanted to bring in a second guest. Lynn Paltrow is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
This is an astounding bill and actually also relates to the issue of domestic violence. Can you explain?
LYNN PALTROW: Well, the way the statute is written, any action a woman undertakes, knowingly or recklessly, can result in a charge of homicide with a penalty of fifteen years. So a woman who is pregnant and stays with her batterer is arguably being reckless in staying there. And should she stay there, she could literally be charged with attempted feticide or murder, if there is a—if she survives and the fetus doesn’t. And I think your other guest can talk about why women do stay in those circumstances and why making them criminals for doing so is so unjust.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s really astounding when you play this out, because if a woman is afraid that she might not get health insurance, she won’t let people know that this has happened, Terry O’Neill.
|
|
|
|
