This Saturday, the house passed its version of health care reform. Included for it to pass was the Stupak amendment, which guarantees that no money set aside for a national health care program will fund any abortions. I woke up on Sunday morning thankful that the pro-life democrats took a stand that produced the biggest victory in pre-born advocacy in the last 20 years.
Immediately after the passage of this bill, the left-wing of the democratic party began to position themselves for action. They immediately began to overstate the loss. In doing so, they stated that women are being "robbed of their reproductive rights". Specifically, the plan prohibits any privately owned plan subsidized by the federal healthcare bill from providing abortions as part of their coverage. The "women's rights" lobby (who really probably does not even represent a plurality of women) shares they will make sure the health care bill does not pass unless the Stupak amendement is not modified or repealed.
Let us imagine for moment that the Stupak amendment stays in the health care bill, and the house health care bill becomes the law of the land. What would happen? Careful reflection shows that the pro-abortion lobby has overstated the direness of the situation in their worst case scenario. This is how:
1. The average abortion, according to my research, costs between $350-650 dollars. Since the poorest of the poor would already be on government sponsored healthcare, this means that the most vulnerable of affected women would be making between $25000-$40000 a year. While a doctor bill of $400 is no picnic, it is not something that is going to put a middle-class couple into bankrupcy. Furthermore, having to pay for such a service might be an effective stimulus for women to either use birth control or practice abstinence. A 12 month finance plan of $50/month would be appropriate for many. Shouldn't getting knocked up unexpededly at least have the consequences of speeding?
2. Within days after the passage of this bill, some insurance would provide a low-cost insurance rider in partnership with Planned Parenthood that would cost members about $10/month that would cover controversial reproductive procedures. This would be separate from their insurance coverage.
3. Most pro-abortion organizations could spend a lot of their money to further subsidize the abortions that they believe are important to offer at select clinics.
So what is the pro-abortion lobby yelling at? The loss of women's rights? No, abortions are still legal in all 50 states. They are angry because they have a sense of entitlement. An entitlement that I am hoping they soon have to live without.
3 comments:
Great post.
Very well stated.
Very interesting. As someone who is pro-choice (I distinguish that from being pro-abortion, which I am not), I found that I was not offended by this article. I always expect to be offended by pro-life writers who bash the pro-choice agenda. So bravo for that.
Although I am pro-choice, I agree with the Stupak amendment. I do not believe we need to make it easy for women to have abortions. As I said, I am not pro-abortion. If it were up to me, all babies who are not wanted would be born and then adopted. But sadly, so few Americans are willing to adopt children who are not their own (especially children from this country, which I find to be ludicrous), that if we did somehow make abortion illegal again, our social service system would collapse under the weight of the burden. I say this generally, not to you specifically. It's just something I sort of get passionate about.
Post a Comment