The Great Abortion Debate Continues

Abortion - taboo in any conversation but now it seems to be on the lips of every politician in Washington. The president's new Health Care Reform Bill has given rise to a new conversation regarding abortion. Should the federal government contribute funds to accommodate women who want or need an abortion? The language of the new health care bill is asking that the federal government not assist women who choose abortion by not contributing funds to the insurance companies that cover abortions. As it stands no federal monies currently will pay for abortions either through Health & Human Services or Medicare, which is understandable but they do not yet dictate how private insurance companies disperse their monies or write their policies. If I understand correctly this health coverage will also eliminate the current coverage women have from their employers to have an abortion if the choose to do so.

The adjusted language of the new bill acknowledges that it is acceptable for cases where there has been rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy, but isn't the latter of those the exact reason a woman finds herself in the position to have an abortion? Her life or the child's is in jeopardy in some form or another.

From what I have read of this bill the restructuring is intended to be non-prejudicial with respect to race, religion, finances or medical needs. If that is so how can they put limits on what it will pay for? Yes, there are alternatives, but here we go again, choice, free choice to do what we decide to do with our bodies. I thought progress was to go forward not backward.

I do know one thing, no matter what the government dictates, abortions will go on paid for or not. They have since the beginning of time and will do so until the end. The government has tried in the past to not allow women to have a say in what they do with their bodies but that was changed. Once again they want to send women back to the dark ages by not allowing insurance companies to pay for the procedure. They should just go back to the back alleys and back rooms with whatever they can find to get the job done. It would make more since financially and in every other way to offer these women the proper care, have it done properly instead of having them find whatever means they can and end up costing everyone more because they became infected or worse. Isn't our country the land of free choice and opportunity that we can do and believe how we want? Evidently not according to the men in power who want to make the choices they believe are right for us according to how they believe. Women who make this choice shouldn't need the approval of the government only their conscience, God or who or whatever guides their decisions. This is a very personal choice and should not be up for government approval.

The option to have abortion paid for by insurance is not going to increase abortions just as not paying for them will not decrease them. Abortions will happen just like anything else with or without the government's help.

I do understand the flip side of this argument that no one wants to be a party to young girls going out, partying, getting pregnant and then waking up wanting an abortion. That is not what this is all about. The medical necessity of providing adequate care for the women who decide to do this is apparent to all but the ones in charge. The government should not be able to dictate our choices or what medical care we receive.

Reference:

Allen, J. "Abortion deal spins a very tangled web", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29561.html, POLITICO, 16, Nov, 2009, 12, Dec, 2009.

Ely, T., "Obama's attack on abortion rights", http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n10.shtml, ICFI, WSG.com, 10, Nov, 2009. 11, Dec, 2009.

Espo, D., "Senate blocks tough abortion limits in health bill", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul, Associated Press, 8, Dec, 2009. 13, Dec, 2009.