Amidst all the talk of coverage for uninsured Americans, it is easy to overlook some particulars in our current health-care debate. With hundreds (indeed, even thousands) of pages of legislation pushing through Congress, it is often easy to simply push through some relatively minor issues in pursuit of an overarching whole whose final outcome provides more benefit than harm. One problem, however, arises when we overlook particular aspects of legislation that can indeed make the situation worse. A case in point is the current health care reform, a new piece of legislation being considered in Congress that would change abortion standards considerably.
The measure, which would restrict access to insurance for abortions, has served as a hotly contested fighting ground for pro-life and pro-choice activists. In its final form, the House bill prohibits the sale of abortion insurance to those who receive subsidies and those on government-run insurance plans. As constructed, the legislation poses lawmakers with a strong trade-off: accept a law that reduces gender inequalities in health care provision or uphold the reproductive rights of women across the nation by striking that law down.
Amidst all the talk of minimal coverage for uninsured Americans, it is easy to overlook some particulars in our current health-care debate. With hundreds (indeed, even thousands) of pages of legislation pushing through Congress, it is often easy to simply push through some relatively minor issues in pursuit of an overarching whole whose final outcome provides more benefit than harm. One problem, however, arises when we overlook particular aspects of legislation that can indeed make the situation worse. A case in point is the current health care reform, a new piece of legislation being considered in Congress that would change abortion standards considerably.
The measure, which would restrict access to insurance for abortions, has served as a hotly contested fighting ground for pro-life and pro-choice activists. In its final form, the House bill prohibits the sale of abortion insurance to those who receive subsidies and those on government-run insurance plans. As constructed, the legislation poses lawmakers with a strong trade-off: accept a law that reduces gender inequalities in health care provision or uphold the reproductive rights of women across the nation by striking that law down.
Another important consideration about the bill is the scope of its coverage. Originally aimed at only those people who qualify for direct government assistance, the measure would eventually extend into the ranks of large employers providing insurance to their workers. Previously, such employers were free to include abortion coverage in the insurance they provided to their employees. The bill would therefore have far-reaching effects not only on the marginally poor but also the majority of Americans who currently receive some sort of coverage as part of their job package.
Congress is making a grave mistake if it allows the bill in its current form to pass through into law. The issue is not one of pro-life and pro-choice. The underlying issue here, however, is one of federalism, the overarching principle that has united federal and state measures under the common umbrella of mutual cooperation. Since the issue of abortion first received national attention in the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Roe v. Wade, the federal government has taken a hands-off approach, allowing states to determine the defining characteristics of their own laws regarding abortion. To that end, current law simply prohibits the federal government from fully financing abortion services, in no way preventing states from taking that very action on their own. That such a highly-debated issue was merely acknowledged in passing and articulated as but one of many provisions in an exhausting list of health care reforms is a travesty and a gross underestimation of such a policy’s effects on the relationship between the national and state governments. The House needs to strike down the bill and allow states themselves to determine how federal health care legislation will affect abortion.
For a closer look at the actual legislation follow: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/
2 comments:
I agree, you make an interesting point about this legislation infringing upon state rights by imposing anti-abortion clauses within the overall health care plan. I liked how you exposed the argument as federal ist debate rather than delve into the highly controversial issue of pro-choice/pro-life. Congressional members should have the ability to vote on the bill in its purest form, without such logrolling, anti-abortion additions that threaten to corrupt its original intentions of healthcare reform.
This is very true, the real danger of these large-scale legislation is how politicians will try to get smaller bills through. It's easy to hide things like this behind the overall media frenzy. In the end, the act of providing health care should be that and only that. It makes no sense to deny some forms of health care in a bill providing health care.
Post a Comment