|
If you're pro-life, the new health care reform bill possibly is just about everything you could have wished for. Thank Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. (yes, you read that right, a Democrat) for effectively banning abortion coverage from all health insurance, public and private.
Whereas the original stated goal of Stupak's amendment to H.R. 3962 was to keep federal funds from paying for abortions (a situation that pretty much exists now, thanks to subsidies for private insurance companies that can indirectly fund abortions), the amendment goes above and beyond. It prevents any insurance company that participates in the Health Insurance Exchange - again, public or private - from providing abortion coverage.
These companies can provide supplemental coverage for abortions that must be paid for separate from the premiums that go to everything else, but that's not likely to be a popular choice. Not many people plan that far ahead to have an abortion. If they planned that far ahead, they wouldn't want an abortion.
The idea of keeping taxpayer dollars out of abortion clinics is one I find somewhat admirable. Even I can go along with that part of the amendment.
Stupak doesn't stop at federal funding, however. Keeping abortion coverage from private health care options in the exchange makes it almost impossible for a woman to get insurance coverage for a procedure that, whether you agree with it, she has a right to.
Yes, that's correct: She has a right to it. Abortions are legal in this country. It is a woman's choice if she wants one, not Congress', not the voters' and not Bart Stupak's.
So shouldn't private insurance companies, using private money from their own private customers, be able to make the choice to help a woman exercise her Supreme Court-protected rights? Shouldn't the government be staying out of the hair of private businesses doing legal things? Wouldn't that be the capitalistic, anti-regulation, free-market thing to do? Wouldn't leaving that decision to the invisible hand of markets make the ghost of Ronald Reagan smile?
Regardless of how you feel about abortion, if you respect the law, then you should understand the difference between challenging abortions in a fair, constitutional and democratic manner and undertaking action that impedes the ability of private individuals to exercise their rights. One is fair and honest. The other is fascist.
Really, what's the difference between the government telling your insurance company that it can't fund abortions and the government "rationing your health care?" Isn't preventing your insurance from covering a legal procedure basically the same as preventing your insurance from paying for a surgery you need because it's "too expensive." The difference seems to be that the case of the latter is decided by an actuary, as happens with private insurance now, and the case of the former is decided by the opinions of people who don't like the law.
The overreach of Stupak's amendment is a slap in the face to those who believe the rights of individuals to do what they wish under the law should transcend what is politically popular. Then again, this country has shown, when liberty is unpopular, it almost always will falter. For example, earlier this month, Maine voters struck down the right of marriage between two people of the same sex who love each other, choosing instead to hold private prejudices above individual liberty.
I understand the arguments against abortion. I understand many people don't approve of it, and I'm perfectly fine if you don't want your tax dollars paying for it. The problem is that many people don't know when to stop. It isn't Congress' job to tell private health insurance companies what perfectly legal services they can or cannot provide, regardless of how controversial they are. If you're going to ban abortions, don't dance around it. Take it to the courts again and try to put together a legal argument saying you shouldn't have the freedom to choose. Or, you could put it to a vote and ignore constitutionality like those who hate same-sex marriage.
Then again, the more legal and sensible way to do this would be to have a single-payer healthcare system in this country that doesn't provide for abortion coverage, but Satan will be scraping ice off of his windshield before Americans get out of the pockets of insurance executives and agree to that.
Jon Reed
Source: Cw.ua.edu November 2009
|
