So there’s this line, this amendment in the new health bill just passed by the House, which stipulates that someone choosing the government coverage option will not be covered for abortion costs. Naturally, pro-choice advocates are furious while pro-life folks are hailing it. I, for one, don’t see how it’s necessary, strategically, for the bill to pass, if that’s why it’s even on the table.
The most interesting little note is how 176 Republicans voted for the specific amendment in the bill and then subsequently voted against the bill, essentially hedging their own bets. Whether or not you are for or against choice, you’ve got to wonder what the Democrats were thinking here. Apparently, about a quarter of Democrats in the house supported such an amendment, so maybe this was a way to keep them and some Republicans happy, an attempt to just move the bill forward.
It’s not clear yet what will happen in Senate, as the bill is discussed and the two versions, the House’s and the Senate’s are merged into one bill and, at this point, it’s still a much bigger deal of whether or not there will even be a public option for coverage at all.
As for my opinion. I’m a bit torn. The arguments for abortion tend to hinge on when you believe life begins and are coupled with one’s views of the rights of a woman to control her reproduction. I can see the government taking a stance of both supporting the choice (which, in essence, supports the right of the woman to control her reproduction) but not wanting to subsidize abortion (which, in essence, takes a step back from deciding on when life begins). It seems much the same as a separation from church and state.
One might then argue that the government cannot support the choice of women without then sometimes subsudizing the action of some women who, otherwise, could not afford the choice. I’m not sure that’s correct. Saying, ‘I believe it is right for you to choose what is right for you, your body, and your conscience’ does not mean that the government should then have to ally itself with that choice.
But I’m not set on this opinion. I’d like to hear more.
Related:
Related posts:
How the 'red eye' to Harlem gave me an STD
Iran Is Willing to Discuss
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
This is a really difficult issue. I honstly havent read enough yet to warrant an intelligent response but I appreciate you bringing this up.
STay tuned.
It’s one of those things that a few people who follow the news will no about, they will mention it but not too many people will listen. A year from now, some girl who is stoked on her new, Government health care, will get knocked-up, and wonder why the hell she can’t afford an abortion but can afford a pregnancy.
What do people without health care currently do for an abortion? Won’t Planned Parenthood cover the costs?
If government health care is provided, would Planned Parenthood no longer receive funding? I personally believe that this should be a non-issue if places like Planned Parenthood keep their current services.
Well, Planned Parenthood isn’t ubiquitous, but I see what you’re saying and I think I’d come up with something similar. Basically, this amendment which would possibly prevent government funding for abortions is included in the House bill but is specifically not in the Senate’s version. I think most people are doubting it would end up in the final version, but it’s a disturbing thought.