So Roe v. Wade has come to this. The House passed the healthcare bill, with restrictions on abortions. The Senate now is squabbling over the same abortion issues (full article here).
In the end, as long as the health bill passes, choice will be a lost cause. In 1976, the House passed the Hyde Amendment, which forbade Medicaid from using any federal money to pay for abortions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the Constitution to mean that the federal government has broad discretion in taxation and spending. As such, they may attach many conditions, requirements or prohibitions to how that money may or may not be spent.
Thus, this national healthcare plan will be no different than Medicaid. The federal government can and will dictate the terms of abortion. Under a national plan, Roe v. Wade is entirely irrelevant, as it applies only to private money and private transactions.
The result is that abortion is left entirely in the hands of government. Abortion access will be further endangered every time there are enough Republicans in D.C. to make a difference. Until now, Roe v. Wade, accepted as valid Supreme Court precedent, has been a bastion against conservative assaults on the right to choose because private parties with private insurers are free to make such a choice.
Under a government plan, there is no such choice, no such freedom. Certainly, the current state of healthcare in this country is in dire need of an overhaul. However, a government-run program is not the answer. There are many other solutions and changes available. Fixing a system does not mean that you must take the only solution, and a poor one at that, that other countries have chosen.
The government is very close to deciding that abortion is not a necessary or appropriate procedure for women to have, and I cannot for the life of me understand why feminists everywhere support this kind of system. As long as healthcare is in the hands of the government, choice will be a constant battle, a right teetering on the edge of oblivion, and depending entirely on the conservative or liberal makeup of Congress.
Since when did feminism become merely a subdivision, and ultimately a tool, of the Big Government agenda? There are 17 female Senators, and 75 women in the House. This is out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators total. This amounts to about a paltry 17 percent.
We, as feminists, who allegedly stand up against the establishment and antiquated institutions, are voting to allow this backwards, unrepresentative, good old boy's club have ultimate control over healthcare and reproductive choices. I am not sure I understand it. Nancy Pelosi has sold out the pro-choicers, and everyone in government will continue to do the same.
It is high time we understood that if we want something done, we do it ourselves. The government is about special interests, lobbyists, and compromise. It is not about the individual, and it never has been. Just as the Susan B. Anthonys and Lucretia Motts could not count on the government to watch out for women's rights and suffrage, we cannot count on the same government to maintain our reproductive rights.
Depending on, and ultimately begging (which is what it has come to now) the government to give us our abortion rights is ludicrous, offensive and undignified.
Even if the pro-choicers win the battle this time, there will be another battle, and an endless series of more battles, until this country becomes one that is predominantly or entirely pro-choice. Given that the American public has increasingly shown a dislike for abortion in recent years, to hand over such a precious right to the government is a dangerous move indeed.
Even if one is vehemently anti-choice, it is not hard to see that this same logic can be extended to all kinds of other procedures. The government does not have unlimited funds. It can and will decide what procedures are necessary, which are appropriate, and which are expendable.
It will have no regard for what a particular individual needs, or what is best for a certain patient. Like the situation with abortion, Congress could easily ban or restrict other legitimate procedures because of what they perceive to be elective or dangerous.
Any time the government has major power over healthcare, there are concerns of special interests and corruption. Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an order requiring all girls of a certain age in Texas public schools to receive the Gardasil vaccine - it was later discovered that he received donations from Merck, the makers of that vaccine. I happen to think the vaccine is great; however that is not the point. The point is that healthcare and medical decisions were swayed by special interests and corruption.
In another instance, Dr. David Hager, a avid member of the Christian Medical Association, found his way on to the FDA Advisory Board, and managed to prevent the safe and effective Plan B emergency birth control pill from being sold over-the-counter because of his personal religious beliefs.
It makes no sense to allow the availability of procedures and drugs to depend on the arbitrary whims, morals and interests of a bunch of well-connected, self-righteous old people in Washington D.C. who have no medical background.
We are not a nation of homogeneous needs, beliefs or morals. So why let the government make the same decisions for everyone?
Feminism is about freedom.
There is no freedom when the status of your reproductive rights shifts every time there is a shift in the makeup of Congress.
There is no freedom when you have to beg your government to acknowledge your reproductive rights.
Supporting this healthcare plan is essentially a bow to the establishment, a concession that women don't know what's good for their own bodies; the government does.
Comments
Why should my tax dollars fund contraception for people that are not responsible enough to purchase birth control.
The same Government that protects the lives of confessed murderers, should not end the lives of innocent children that have not had a chance to prove themselves.
Having sex and a good time comes with consequenses just as much as drinking and driving, or doing drugs. It all feels good while your doing it, but when your in trouble, your looking for a way out.
The Government and taxpayers should not have pay for peoples personal mistakes.
The biggest problem with the pepole of he United States is that the majority is not responsible for their own actions. They are always looking to blame or place responsibility some where else.
I agree that your tax dollars should not go to fund abortions. That's why I am against this bill. However, on the flip side, if this government program is going to be paid for by all taxpayers, they really don't have a choice but to use this program, or let their tax money go to waste - thus the pro-choice people's tax dollars are going to fund a program that they disagree with. It doesn't work either way. Thus my opposition.
If abortion is covered under the plan it is bad:
about 50% of the country is forced to pay for something they find morally repugnant. Even though I think they are incorrect, I would still never dream of forcing someone to pay for something they neither want, nor find to be even remotely morally acceptable.
On the flip side, not covering it is also awful. As Jenn said everyone will eventually be in this plan because they've already paid for it via taxes, so why pay again,(the same with govt schools, sure you can go to private, but then you'd be paying twice). Now we have 50% of the country not able to do something that could potentially ruin their lives and it is no body else's business. When we force a one solution on everyone, we will likely have 50% mad at any time, there is no reason.
I like coke, others like pepsi, shall we have congress decide what we all have to drink and scr*w the 49% who like pepsi because the majority voted for coke?
In your mind, pro-choice Democrats might sell out the pro-choice side that you take. But it might show the divide. Your pro-choice view also state if abortion is private act, then by the reasoning then it should be kept private and not be publically funded.
Unfortunately, the pro-choice voters in DC go with the pro-choice side that want their cake and eat it, too- they believe it is privacy entirely but demand others pay for it with their tax dollars, even when they find it is morally wrong and murderous (in ways abolitionists would be upset back in the day if they were asked to pay tax to help fund slavery).
You see it as feminism being tool of big government. Many feminists I read actually want abortion funded and part of health care since in their eyes that make the big government their tool.
Unfortunately for them, you are correct. The power to tax also has power to destroy.
I would not go as far as say abortion rights are going to be taken away because of this alone.
After all, those in control now are the pro-choicers in DC. You are correct, the power shift can mean change. But I think it takes alot more than this health care issue for abortion rights to be taken away even with a pro-life majority in Congress.
"The government is very close to deciding that abortion is not a necessary or appropriate procedure for women to have, and I cannot for the life of me understand why feminists everywhere support this kind of system. As long as healthcare is in the hands of the government, choice will be a constant battle, a right teetering on the edge of oblivion, and depending entirely on the conservative or liberal makeup of Congress."
Simple, they want to claim if we restrict abortion, it is forcing morality on them, but they have no problem forcing it on others.
And I am not singling out feminists who are in power in DC.
It can go for any group. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. None of us, regardless of our nationality, beliefs, politics, etc., are exempt.
"We are not a nation of homogeneous needs, beliefs or morals. So why let the government make the same decisions for everyone?"
I don't agree with you there. On certain key beliefs, we are a nation of such. We believe in rights of people we acknowledge all as human beings to right to life, liberty, and property not being taken away without due process. We are jealous for those rights, in fact, whether we are conservatives or liberals. Most of us have disdain for overzealous prosecutors who take a sensational case and run with it, despite the evidence not supporting their claims (see Duke Lacrosse case and Marine housewife falsely accused of poisoning husband case, for examples). By your logic, that would invalidate any court decision or any law that legalizes abortion or states the unborn are not humans that deserve protection, since after all, if we are not a nation of core beliefs, why should the courts get to decide when life begins?
By the way, Susan B. Anthony was pro-life.
"The government is about special interests, lobbyists, and compromise. It is not about the individual, and it never has been."
That is not always a bad thing. Without compromises, our nation would never have existed with the Constitution that it did. Without compromises, our country would have been involved in civil wars over tariffs and slavery way before 1860, before it was ready to or had the stomach for it.
The government was never set up to satisfy anyone individual in this country. It was set up as restraint on the whims and passions of people lest it becomes anarchy, and it was set up to where it had checks and balances to restraint itself lest the whims and passions of people who are in the government run wild leading to oligarchy and/or tyranny.
"The result is that abortion is left entirely in the hands of government. Abortion access will be further endangered every time there are enough Republicans in D.C. to make a difference. Until now, Roe v. Wade, accepted as valid Supreme Court precedent, has been a bastion against conservative assaults on the right to choose because private parties with private insurers are free to make such a choice."
Republicans hardly are conservative on pro-life. Sure many talk a big game on that when they are campaigning, but then they show their colors once in power. They had decades to do something and hardly did anything.
Punished, I believe you are a bit optimistic about most of us being against overzealous prosecution. Most of my articles are about overzealous prosecution - involving police brutality, court corruption, people going to jail for 5 years for having bong water, throwing grandma in jail for taking pictures of her grandkids taking a bath - this is all overzealous prosecution, and it happens every day.
We, as society, clearly support it. No one is throwing these jokers out of office, no one is protesting the judges, no one is demanding the firing of these prosecutors. Most people's attitude is, "the law is the law!" The cops continue to get "paid suspension" for their heinous deeds, the prosecutors suffer no retribution, and the lawmakers continue to be voted in.
"Even if one is vehemently anti-choice, it is not hard to see that this same logic can be extended to all kinds of other procedures. The government does not have unlimited funds. It can and will decide what procedures are necessary, which are appropriate, and which are expendable."
We agree. We only have ourselves to blame. We knew how Democrat libs think yet we voted them in (not me, but we as in we the people of this country). They made no secret their views on this over the years, on health care reform, etc., etc. Obama is hardly the exception among them. I think Republicans are hardly much better in that regards.
The only difference between Democrat libs and Republicans (libs and so-called conservatives) are that the former spend us towards oblivion, and the latter spend us half-way there.
Due process has essentially become a sham. The government seizes people's property and land all the time. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how your tax money is spent, or oppose the fact that it may be going to fund heinous wars or abortion - if you don't pay, your property will be seized.
People are thrown in jail for doing things that harm absolutely no one. For instance, having 2.5 tablespoons of bong water - that woman went to jail for 5 years. Sure she got a trial, but what does "due process" mean when the process is completely bogus and the results are unfair?
Pretty much agree with you about Dems and Reps, Punisher. They spend about the same, and oppress about the same. They just spend (waste) on different things and oppress different groups.
I already have my "public option." I just cross the border into Mexico to get my health care done, at a lower price and better service especially considering that the health system down there isn't For Profit.
"Feminism is about freedom."
Not for preborn humans.
I lived trough the horror of pre-Roe vs Wade. The problem is that White Men don't care and too many don't remember.
We rail against oppression of women all over the world. Really? What can more oppressive than denying women control over their bodies. I am despaired over this turn of events.
Mad Men is beginning to look futuristic.
Where are the members of my generation? Where is the outrage?
The Court generally got it right with Roe v. Wade. I submit that you have to a pretty callous person to agree with complete freedom to abort unborn children. For the reasons that make limits after roughly the first trimester a good compromise between a woman's rights and an unborn child's rights, I conclude that government insurance should NOT pay for a substantial portion of the abortion. $500-$1000 dollars of one's own shopping money to avoid the burden of child rearing might serve as a good reminder that having an abortion should not be a casual decision. Because lets face it, nobody questions all of our friends who have had to go through it but learned their lesson - we are worried about repeat 'offenders' who just don't get the message and who don't take responsibility for the consequences of enjoying sex.
Ms. Chou, do you know whether many private health insurance companies fund abortions? I assumed they did NOT, and that most low income women get them done through the grace of private organizations like Planned Parenthood anyway. This is why abortion is really a non issue in the health care debate...just another useful propaganda tool for either side.
This is true, but the "public option" will most certainly drive up the costs of abortion, as it is essentially a subsidy of certain types of medical care. Abortion has increasingly become unprofitable due to government restrictions on it, and this healthcare plan will only further serve to drive up the costs of abortion, and limit its availability.
Actually, I have read two sources saying that private healthcare plans cover abortions quite frequently. One estimate is at 85%, while another estimate is at 46%.
In fact this article pinpoints the exact problem - the federal program will not give funds to companies that do fund abortion; thus, those that did cover it before cannot compete unless they drop the abortion coverage.
www.slate.com/id/2235016/
That is interesting information, thank you. I wish I had a clue what the bill purports to do but I will run my mouth anyway... It seems to me that withholding federal funds from (insurance?) companies who sponsor abortion has the effect of an undue restriction on the due process rights protected in Roe. Congress's spending power does allow them to regulate through restrictions on how their money is spent, but I wonder if what your saying is true: that such regulation isn't constrained by due process. Hopefully the Court would in fact strike down such a provision - though it would be best to avoid passing it in the first place. Anyway, its good to have people like you fighting for individual rights with some reason - keep it up!
Last one: just wanted to explicitly agree with you that the "Stupak amendment" would undercut abortion rights as we know them. If the amendment withholds subsidies from private companies funding abortions, yet forces them to insure people against their will, than the effect is a defacto ban on coverage for abortions. This is serious indeed.
What if the amendment merely withheld subsides for the procedure itself while still allowing subsidies to the same company for all other procedures? How would that disadvantage the insurance company?
I don't know how plausible that kind of amendment would be, since it would require close monitoring and auditing of the insurance companies' use of the funds, which would really increase costs to the government.
Even if the amendment did do that, the fact that abortion receives no subsidy is going to make it that much less profitable of a procedure compared to all the other stuff that does get subsidies, and doctors will not want to be abortion providers. This may be a less direct effect, but it will contribute to the decreasing availability of abortion nonetheless, is what I think.
"Punished, I believe you are a bit optimistic about most of us being against overzealous prosecution. Most of my articles are about overzealous prosecution - involving police brutality, court corruption, people going to jail for 5 years for having bong water, throwing grandma in jail for taking pictures of her grandkids taking a bath - this is all overzealous prosecution, and it happens every day."
I agree that it goes on everyday. It is not that people don't care, but that it is that they are not informed.
When overzealous prosecutors are exposed before the whole nation, there is outrage. That's why I cite the examples of the Duke lacrosse case and the Cynthia Sommer case. It involves bad prosecution that willfully ignores evidence it does not like to try to convict and in the latter case convict (though overturned on appeal). The first prosecutor got jailed and the second should have been jailed but at least there is outcry.
"Due process has essentially become a sham. The government seizes people's property and land all the time. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how your tax money is spent, or oppose the fact that it may be going to fund heinous wars or abortion - if you don't pay, your property will be seized."
I agree with you on that. But here's the deal- the problem is with the lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, not with the people. They are stuck voting for those two, since they see little hope for third party candidates.
There are candidates out there, believe it or not, that oppose property tax and eminent domain (which I see as a glorified form of stealing our property then paying for it at what the thief deems is right amount for the property).
It is ridiculous that folks who pay for their homes have to pay taxes on them every year. I can understand sales tax on it the moment they buy the house. But to be charged tax on the house every year is not right.
I agree with this:
www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Taxes
There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."
Unfortunately, Punisher, most legal authorities agree that the 16th Amendment is pretty solid, and there is no real dispute as to whether it is valid. I think the "substantial evidence" that the amendment wasn't technically ratified is based on some missing periods or misplaced commas in different versions of the Amendment. Most tax law authorities agree that there is no legitimate challenge to the validity of the income tax amendment.
Jenn: Unfortunately, Punisher, most legal authorities agree that the 16th Amendment is pretty solid, and there is no real dispute as to whether it is valid. I think the "substantial evidence" that the amendment wasn't technically ratified is based on some missing periods or misplaced commas in different versions of the Amendment. Most tax law authorities agree that there is no legitimate challenge to the validity of the income tax amendment.
Me: The neo-conservative Republican and liberal Democrat legal minds would say that. But not the true conservatives who have for years complained about the government going way further then what it was allowed to under the Constitution.
Of course there is legitimate complaint as to the extent of taxes, what they are used on, and whether this was permissible under the original constitution. However, I think it is a separate issue as to whether the 16th Amendment is itself valid - my impression is that there is no dispute as to the validity of the 16th Amendment, except from conspiracy theorists.
What I am saying is that income tax is valid per se, through the 16th Amendment, but the amount of tax and the way in which it is spent may be legitimately disputed.
"However, I think it is a separate issue as to whether the 16th Amendment is itself valid - my impression is that there is no dispute as to the validity of the 16th Amendment, except from conspiracy theorists."
You miss my point. It may be valid when it comes to how amendments are made. I am not even talking about conspiracy theories or anything of that matter.
I am talking about whether or not the founding fathers would have found it constitutional. My argument would be no.
"What I am saying is that income tax is valid per se, through the 16th Amendment, but the amount of tax and the way in which it is spent may be legitimately disputed."
It is valid in terms of how the amendment was passed. But still contrary to original intent.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!