Women's Rights and Health Insurance Reform
An open letter to my senators and representatives.
I am writing to you today regarding the health care reform bill currently before the house and senate ( Read more... )
I am writing to you today regarding the health care reform bill currently before the house and senate ( Read more... )
The current government-run health care program for the poor, Medicaid, does not fund abortions. Some states have their own programs to make up this gap, but it varies. This is due to the famous Hyde Amendment which banned all federal funding of abortion (although over time has had exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother). So, this is a case where we as a society, through the democratic process, decided to give health care to some who couldn't afford it. Before Medicaid, these people had no health insurance. Now, they do, but don't have abortion coverage. Have their rights been infringed? They can still go get an abortion if they want, it just won't be funded by the government. The current debate over the public option is in some way analogous to the case if Medicaid raised its maximum income level to cover more people. Those people would gain government-sponsored health care, but would still lack abortion coverage. Is that "setting women's rights back decades"?
So, the current status quo is that government-run health care doesn't include abortion coverage. The proposed plans are trying to expand that health care, and keep the limitations on abortion. Is that a blow against women's rights?
Aha, you say. If a public plan doesn't cover abortions, then private insurance plans will soon have to follow suit, because if they don't they will be forced to..uh..maintain two separate plans. Let's consider this case. There are a lot of people who, like yourself, are in favor of abortion rights. Would you buy an insurance plan without that coverage? Let's say all insurance companies except one drop their abortion coverage. Wouldn't that one abortion-covering plan be enormously popular? Shouldn't the free market allow for those plans providing services people want (like abortions) to be successful?
Above I asked you why abortion should be provided (funded) by government (public tax dollars), when there are many other things that we have rights to that are not. In the comments you talk about the seriousness of getting pregnant and the many related consequences (not the least of which is the potential for a child to be born!). However, there are many other serious medical conditions that we don't currently provide to all of our citizens. As I'm sure you're aware, those with serious medical conditions are often stuck with being unable to pay their bills. Should abortions get funding priority over, say, cancer? Only some abortions? Who should decide?
What if I decide that I want to get breast implants, and that the emotional damage that my poor body image has on me poses a serious threat to my mental health? Should a government-run health plan pay for those as well? If not, who should decide?
Here we see the dilemma. As we involve public tax dollars into our health care decisions, we are forced to make tough choices about what should and should not be covered. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the current system. But fans of a more progressive public option need to be realistic and recognize where the money for this system is coming from. Setting limits on abortion coverage isn't a threat to women's rights -- it's keeping the status quo. It's okay not to be a fan of that, but please don't oversimplify and deluge your congressmen with inaccurate mail!
Again, apologies for the length and tone of this message if it does offend. I'd be very interested to hear your reply.
Reply
Leave a comment