Among the biggest points of debate in health care today is whether or not abortion should be funded by government funds. And by government funds, what I really mean is our money- yours and mine. Currently, there are three exceptions to federally funded abortions under the Hyde amendment - cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia provide state funding through Medicaid or the Indian Health Service for abortion under the circumstances listed in the Hyde amendment. An additional six states provide funded abortion services for additional health circumstances and 17 states use state funding for willful termination of pregnancy under any or all circumstances. The only state in non-compliance with the Hyde amendment as revised in 1993 is South Dakota.
While I have no quarrel with funding abortions for cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (as defined in the Hyde amendment), I do have a problem with subsidized abortion free-for-alls. Let me clarify my position here: I am pro-life. I have no problem with the legalization of abortion, or people who are pro-choice, unless their choice involves the use of my tax dollars. My tax dollars should not be used to fund someone else’s choice to be irresponsible. Getting pregnant is easy - having unprotected sex = a living, breathing, unexpected surprise nine months later. If women are smart enough to turn to the government and states with their hand open and expect a handout in the form of a free abortion, then they are obviously intelligent enough to use protection to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or to avoid voluntary termination of pregnancy. We as women have been taught since high school various methods of how to have safe sex- abstinence, birth control, and condoms. If we aren’t smart enough to utilize one of those methods, then life everything else in life we have to deal with the consequences. There are condoms sold in nearly every grocery store and pharmacy. Planned Parenthood has a location in nearly every city. There is plenty of access to birth control and condoms (Let’s just forget having the self-control to abstain from sex, apparently that’s asking far too much of people nowadays). Why should a woman’s irresponsibility become my responsibility? I’ve made smart, educated choices not to have unprotected sex when I knew I wasn’t financially or emotionally ready to have a child. Why is it too much to ask that someone else be a responsible adult and choose not to have unprotected sex when they know they cannot afford a child? However, the newest health plan is removing responsibility off the shoulders of the people it belongs to and wants to put it on all of our shoulders.
People have argued that the Hyde amendment is unfair to low-income women, because they don’t have the money to pay for an abortion that is not life threatening or the result of an act of rape or an act of incest. Whatever happened to adoption? Giving a child who would otherwise grow up in a low-income family a chance at a better life is an honorable choice. In most cases, the women giving up their children to loving, adoptive parents have their prenatal care and after birth care paid for by the adoptive parents. This alleviates the strain on federal and state health care budgets, and eliminates the need for federally funded abortion-for-all plans.
However, there is still the argument that these low-income women will have “back-alley abortions” performed either by themselves or untrained and oftentimes, unlicensed practitioners. To be brutally honest, that is their choice. If an illegal abortion is better than a chance at life in their opinion, then the risks are theirs to take, as are the responsibilities. Is it unfair to “saddle” a women with a baby that has fetal abnormalities? Is it any more fair to saddle pro-life Americans with an abortion bill?
Even Democrats are wavering on the health care reform bill because of the abortion issue. 39 House Democrats voted no strictly because the wording didn’t specify how to prevent taxpayer dollars from becoming mingled in with money used to fund pregnancy terminations. It only cleared the House of Representatives by five votes! With as much of a hot topic as this issue has become, you’d think there would be a lot more reasons to settle this issue once and for all. The removal of federally funded abortion free-for-alls would probably garner more votes from both sides.
My bottom line is this: Demand that insurance policies cover people regardless of whether or not they were sick with a “pre-existing condition”. Provide medical coverage for every American. Just don’t expect me and other pro-lifers to pay for the mistakes that irresponsible women make in regards to an unwanted pregnancy. While every woman deserves the right to choose, I have the right to choose NOT to pay for their bad lifestyle choices.
Sources:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/dems-wary-obamas-final-health-push/
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/another-house-democrat-demands-abortion-restrictions/?sort=oldest&offset=2
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/pelosi-to-back-capuano-in-mass-senate-race/?scp=1&sq=Pelosi%27s%20amendment&st=Search
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment