This weekend, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sent out an update and fundraising email to her constituents underscoring the benefits of the current Senate Health Reform bill.

Boxer notes that the bill, if passed, will:

• Extend health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans,
  including 14 million lower-income, working people through Medicaid
• Prohibit insurance company discrimination based on gender or
  pre-existing condition — and make sure you can’t lose your insurance
  when you get sick
• End the upward, unsustainable increases in insurance premiums
• Increase funding for community health centers in 10,000 communities
  across the country, enhancing primary care for more than 25 million
  people who have traditionally been uninsured or underinsured
• Close the prescription drug "doughnut hole" for seniors
• Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits
• Cut the federal deficit by $132 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

 

There’s was only one problem: The email completely skirts the issue of insurance coverage of abortion care.

The email states:

On Friday, I joined a 7-hour marathon negotiating session to hammer
out the final details of the reform bill. By the end of the night, we
had finally reached a solid compromise to insure more Americans, lower
costs, and hold insurance companies accountable to deliver for the
premiums we pay — all while protecting women’s health and right to
choose.

In fact, as we have noted elsewhere, the Nelson language in the bill will have several deleterious effects on women’s right to choose, by, among other things, limiting access to insurance policies that include abortion care (which in turn will limit the ability of women to access such care), eliminating the provision requiring at least one plan in each exchange include abortion care, and forcing policyholders to write two checks, one for the share of their premium devoted to abortion care.

Can we say these outcomes protect a woman’s right to choose? Not by even the most conservative reading of the Nelson language.

It is somewhat mystifying why a pro-choice Senator would not include such information in an email to her constituents.