RSS
Home
With new healthcare bill, Roe v. Wade will become useless - goodbye abortion rights
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Supporters of a national campaign called Mobilization For Healthcare For All protest
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.
Related Articles:
Comments
