Setting aside the moral judgment that you render on abortion, would you vote for a healthcare bill that covers abortion? That has been the center of some of the most controversial discussions I have had with friends in recent weeks surrounding the passage of the House Healthcare Bill with the insertion of the Stupak Amendment, which mandates that no federal money will be used to pay for abortion (except in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life); and that private insurance may not be utilized to fund abortions in the case where gov’t subsidies are being used. It leaves open the choice of using one’s own money to buy private insurance to pay for abortions, presumably to come at a significantly higher premium.
I am pro choice (every woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body) and I am also a taxpayer whose taxes will go towards federal taxes that will fund the Bill, and to paying for private insurance premium. After much research and debate I have concluded that it is purely an economic issue IF a health issue is a “choice” issue: what should your hard earned tax payer money be used to cover? Should it cover people’s “choices” for certain procedures, if so, what should they be?
Given abortion is a “choice” (except in the case of rape, incest, and danger to a mother’s life), just as is the “choice” to conceive via invitro fertilization (IVF), I would argue that both abortions and IVF ought to be evaluated on equal footings and as such, if one is covered under federal funding, so should the other, and vice versa. And if one is using one’s own money, by all means buy whatever policies one desires. Currently IVF is not paid for by federal funding or private insurance; abortions are covered by Fed funding on the aforementioned cases and by private insurance in states where abortions are allowed, statistics show that roughly 46% of all private insurance cover abortions.
Many of my impassioned friends have implored me to examine the issue from a legislative and social perspective, as it pertains to the underprivileged. I have put forth some of the arguments in support of abortions as part of the bill and counter queries associated with them:
1) The House Bill legislates and limits a woman’s choice and throws Women’s rights under the bus. QUERY: that very same right still exists but the question now is should taxpayers’ money be used to cover abortion if it is being used as a form of contraception? Aren’t condoms and pills cheaper forms of contraception that are already covered?
2) The cost to the gov’t in the form of social welfare with all the unwanted pregnancies in the lower socio-economic segment will be significantly higher, which will cost the taxpayers more money. QUERY: There are loads of information available today and access to pregnancy prevention, even in the poorest of neighborhoods. If people choose not to employ contraceptives, is it the gov’t’s responsibility? Though sadly it has become the gov’t’s burden.
3) Many argued that we must look at the denial of funding to a class of women who do not have the economic means to pay for abortions. QUERY: Plenty of people do not have the economic means to pay for plenty of things. What is the aim of a universal healthcare bill? Is it to cover the broadest segments of the population possible (est. 50 Mil Americans without health insurance) with the most common and critical health ailments, or a segment specifically pertaining to abortion (which is a choice)? Perhaps the gov’t ought to clearly delineate what is the goal of the Bill.
We can argue both side of the equation until the cows come home and it will be heated. At the end of the day we are all colored by our own cultural and socio-economic upbringing and everyone is entitled to his or her opinions. It will be interesting if the bill was to be put forth as a popular vote, what would the outcome be?
