First of all, though I am pro-choice, this article is not meant as a commentary on the moral implications of abortion. Instead, I simply mean to discuss the practical impact of legislation that deals with a practice that is currently legal in the United States.
On Saturday, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping, potentially historic health care reform bill that included the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which prohibits any federal money from funding abortion. On the surface, this appears to be nothing more than a continuation of current U.S. policy, most notably the Hyde Amendment. Upon further examination, this legislative action goes much further.
First, the amendment means that the government-run insurance plan will not fund abortion, something that was unlikely to happen anyway. It does not prohibit plans that cover abortion from participating in the bill's insurance exchanges. In fact, it allows companies that participate to offer two nearly identical plans, one with and one without abortion coverage. However, anyone who receives a subsidy from the government to purchase a plan would be barred from buying any private plan that provides any abortion coverage whatsoever.
This measure will almost certainly serve to perpetuate inequality, rather than serve the overall purpose of the bill, which is to lessen it. Statistically, unwanted pregnancies are consistently more common amongst the lower classes and amongst minorities. However, these are the same groups who would be more likely to require subsidies to buy insurance and, therefore, would not be covered for abortion. This would deny coverage for abortions to those who are most likely to need it, forcing many women to carry pregnancies to term who are simply not ready to do so. Considering the social and financial burden that often accompanies premature motherhood, this is likely to make things more difficult for many women who are already disadvantaged. These women should be allowed to have the same options as the rest of the population. This legislation will insure that they do not.
As I said before, this is not at all meant to address the morality of the practice of abortions. If you want to discuss this from either side, comment on someone else's article. Currently, the practice is legal in the United States and, therefore, should be available to those who feel that they need it. If at some point the practice is made illegal, then the government would have every reason to deny funding for it. This not being the case, it seems ridiculous for the government to take this passive-aggessive stance in which "it's ok", but "it's not". The health care bill was no place to do this, especially when it is likely to further disenfranchise many already disadvantaged American women.
Comments
very good analysis
Absolutely. You are spot on with this article. If you have money or the proper insurance you get to make the right decision for yourself. If you have no money or no insurance then other people get to make your decisions for you - or you go back to the back alleys of the old days.
I couldn't disagree with you more... First of all, abortion is NOT health care. If you are sick and disadvantaged financially, that is fine that the government will subsidize you getting health care. But carrying a baby to term and giving it up for adoption, for example, does not threaten/harm the life of the mother or even have to put her at a disadvantage financially. Medicaid already will pay for all prenatal health care. And there are other groups who are so willing help in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.
No, to ask Americans to pay for an abortion because a mother is not "ready" is just not right. If she is disadvantaged and knows she can't pay for a child, she does have a "choice" in not conceiving in the first place.
And did you know an extremely high percentage of mothers debating abortion, given the opportunity to see an ultrasound of their babies even as early as 7 weeks and hear the heartbeat will "choose" to keep them?? There is "choice" for these women.
I don't always agree with your conclusions, but, in this case, I do. If abortion is legal, then everyone should have full access to those services, especially those who can least afford to have a child (whatever the circumstances). Let's hope that the same amount of funding will be allocated to contraception.
The abortion issue is just one of many that demonstrate how the proposed government takeover of our health care system will destroy individual rights. I agree with you that, if the final health care reform bill includes a provision like the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, it will violate many women’s abortions rights by making it much more expensive and difficult for women to get an abortion. However, if the bill does not include any restriction on public funding of abortions, then those who believe abortion is morally wrong will be forced to finance abortions. Either way, some individuals’ rights will be violated.
The only way to secure everyone’s individual rights is to get government out of health care. [That incidentally would also solve most of the other problems, including runaway costs, of our health care system.]
This article is very well informed but in my opinion, simply put, beggars have no right to be choosers. You cannot expect the rest of us to pay for the abortions of others especially when the US as a whole is no where near a consensus on this issue. Too many people are pro life to be paying a tax that contributes to abortions. To me you have four choices, either make enough money to be able to afford these luxuries, be smart and spend ten dollars on protection every once and a while, don't have sex in the first place or deal with the consequences of your own actions.
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!