In a news article from the US News and World Report, published September 9, 2009, Dan Gilgoff tackles the heated debate on the health care reform in relation to abortion. Although abortion is not the first thing that comes to mind when discussing the health care reform, it is in fact a significant issue that is preventing revised versions of the bill to be passed. Conservative Christians and pro-life activists fear the new public health insurance plan will increase abortion coverage. “They object to pooled premiums of those participating in the public plan going to abortion coverage for others in the plan, as laid out in the House healthcare bill. Americans who are opposed to abortion, the activists say, shouldn't be forced to pay for abortion procedures for others with their premiums”.
The White House and Capitol Hill Democrats have presented religious activist groups with two “solutions” to their concerns of increased federal funding for abortions. “One idea is to offer a second public option that excludes abortion coverage. Another is to offer a supplemental insurance rider for those who want abortion coverage.”
Additionally, progressive thinkers presented Congress with the idea that the bill could reduce the number of abortions by expanding the number of women whom receive health insurance that covers contraception. Lastly, California Representative Lois Capps believes her amendment gives antiabortion Americans options; her amendment requires at least one plan in any new government-controlled health insurance to exclude abortion coverage.
How do you think the government should handle abortion coverage if the public option bill is passed?
To read the full article, visit the Nation and World page of US News & World Report
I think this is one of the best article’s presented, because it not only encompasses civil rights, but it also brings into question federal vs. state. If Obama’s health-care plan were to be passed with an abortion clause, Obama would strip state’s of their right to determine whether abortions are legal. Because a law has not been devised to address abortion, constitutionally, abortion is left up to states to decided. If this health-care reform bill were to pass, states would immediately lose their right to this decision. Now this is straying somewhat off of the article and its main objective, but I believe abortion within the plan, brings a constitutional predicament. Who should be able to determine the legality of abortion? And if a rider is passed within the health-care reform, should the constitution be altered to address abortion?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I really found this to be an interesting sub-topic under the whole topic of health care reform. As for Trevor's question regarding who should determine the legality of abortion I feel that there is no right answer besides those who are getting the abortion. It's obvious that there are pro-choice and pro-life advocates in the area of abortion with different perspectives regarding the issue. With that in mind, there is no right answer or right way because numerous people have different opinions. This is an issue that I think will stall the health care reform for quite some time because it's already such a controversial issue. If there is an option where abortion is a separate issue than the constitution shouldn't be altered, but that's not the case. The real question is will this health care reform ever be passed now that we just put another controversial topic on top of an already controversial issue?
ReplyDelete