You are here: Home » Opinions

You Be the Judge: Stupak-Pitts: Should we fund abortion?

By Gaveliers, The Gavel Media Team, on December 7, 2009 8:50 PM

Argument 1: By Emma Staffaroni

It was time for discussions about healthcare that address the needs of all Americans — almost. Instead of being able to rejoice over our victory in the House of Representatives earlier this month, Democrats winced with disappointment and chagrin. On Nov. 7, the House passed the “Affordable Health Care for Americans Act,” and with it ushered in the bitter taste of sexism. An amendment with a ban on all abortion coverage under the federal plan was tacked onto the bill at the last minute. This is an outrageous manipulation of the current state of abortion rights in the United States.

Feminists and pro-choice activists already live with the hovering dark cloud that is the Hyde Amendment, a policy that casts its shadow over the brighter world created by Roe v. Wade in the ‘70s. As long as this legislation and philosophy of reproductive rights exists in Washington, American women remain effectively confined to our biology.

Hyde states that no federal money from the Health and Human Services budget may be allocated for abortions. In retaliation, 17 of our 50 states have passed laws or judicial rulings that utilize other funds to provide low-income and uninsured women with this fundamental health and safety provision. Of course, we are far from a nation where a woman’s choice is valued as much as a man’s, but it appeared that we were moving forward—albeit at a glacial pace.

Late into the discussion surrounding the health care bill, Stupak introduced his amendment as a way to appease anti-choice Democrats. According to Stupak, it was these Democrats who put the health care bill “over the top.” If anything is over the top, it is the number of elected anti-choice Democrats. Many of them were only placed in leadership positions in the House to combat the stereotypes that Democrats are anti-religion and lacking “values.”

Values and religion do most of the talking when it comes to women’s bodies. When I see a photo of Obama shaking hands with a cardinal, I remember that I live in a nation married to the Catholic Church. While Obama may have been speaking in a strictly Hydean manner when he said that under the new plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” he sounded more like he was preaching the “moral choice.”

“Look,” Stupak explained to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. “We‘ve been consistent. No federal funds for abortion, keep the current law, and let’s do talk about health care, and let’s not have an abortion debate. The sad part about this whole debate is we never talk about the good things that’s in the health care bill. We’re all hung up on this abortion issue.”

Is it semantics, or sexism? It appears that Stupak would like to have an erudite discussion about affordable health care, not one about the individuals that will partake of in it.

Politicians are using wordplay, trying to mask the explicitly anti-choice philosophy that informed the amendment. It is the defensive wordplay of a politician who knows he is not representing his party’s commitment to women’s choice and privacy.

There is wordplay, and there is lying. Stupak is not keeping with “current law” at all. The bill does not stay within the confines of the Hyde Amendment; it takes it further by prohibiting women who subscribe to the proposed public option from obtaining services from another private insurance provider. Of course, the individuals who would benefit most from the public option will not have a private option anyway. But hey, that’s why we’ve got the black market, right?

Since Stupak’s audacious move, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other rights activists across the nation have mobilized to convince Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to act against this ban. Reid has been working to establish a compromise in the language of the bill. The senator released a revision of the bill that upholds Hyde restrictions while removing the ban on supplementary sources of reproductive health coverage. It is an improvement; we can only hope it is enough to appease legislators who still fear a woman’s sexuality and right to control her own body.

__________________________________________________

Argument 2: By Kevin Stevenson

As America enters into a revolutionary time period in health care reform, President Barack Obama, legislators and the public alike are quickly realizing that health care is not such a simple game. Aside from the implications of financing such an endeavor and what it means to the country’s economy, health care encompasses thousands of different services. In the private sector, it is up to individual health care companies to determine what is and what is not covered by insurance. As health insurance travels into the public sector, these decisions must be made by a country.

For better or worse, many health care decisions are made on a basis of profit and cost. Health care companies must compete with rival competitors and offer services to their clients comparable to the rest of the market. At the same time, services that are too costly will not be offered without customers paying premiums on their coverage. The government, however, cannot make decisions based simply on these factors. Unlike health care companies, the government does not operate solely on the basis of profits and losses. Actions taken by the government must be consistent with the morals and principles that we want to see pervade our entire culture.

Much controversy has surrounded the amendment surrounding abortion within the “Affordable Health Care for Americans Act.” An extremely crucial step towards the heralded Obama-care, many Democrats have been disappointed about abortion coverage being stripped from the plan. This amendment isn’t a matter of whether abortion is right or wrong; it is a matter of what implications government-funded abortions carry.

Such an amendment is not an attack on women’s rights. Compromises such as this occur on a daily basis in our Congress, and the fact that such a concession was made to pass such a revolutionary act is not surprising. Many would argue that it was a relatively small concession, especially since there are ways around the Hyde Amendment and with the scope and cost of “Obama-care” so large, one could argue the Democrats emerged victorious. While important issues should not be used as political bargaining chips, no act of such magnitude will ever make it out of Congress without various concessions being made. This is an indication that people in Congress have contrasting beliefs (just like the people they govern) on how things should work in this country.

The social implications that government-funded abortions would carry are not to be ignored. Allowing abortions to anyone with the public option of health care eliminates many reasons for people to be sexually responsible. It is using taxpayers dollars to clean up the messes of people who are sexually irresponsible. Are there exceptions to this? Certainly. Does this mean that men will bear this burden as equally as women? Not whatsoever. Are there instances when abortions are required for reasons other than irresponsibility? Absolutely, and stipulations should be made for those unfortunate instances. However, such funding does send the message from the government that people can behave in any manner they want, and the government will pay to clean up their mess. There must be a line where people take responsibility for their actions and don’t rely on the government to bail them out.

People do have a right to receive health care, but morally they do not have a right to have an abortion. The amendment was a necessary concession, something that happens every day in Congress in order for progress to be made. The government sponsoring abortions removes the responsibility involved with people having sex, something that could bode terribly for American society. Are abortions cheaper than caring for a child through birth and their upbringing? Absolutely — and I would be the first to desire this health care bill to be as cheap as possible. Yet such funding would show that the government is willing to bail any and everyone out for being irresponsible — and that is an attitude that cannot be pervasive throughout American society be, it on Wall Street or in the bedroom.