Many members of the Senate this week are struggling to come to terms with the new proposed health care bill, specifically with what its policy on abortion means for women. The bill currently bans coverage for abortions in all government-run insurance plans, as well as in any plan purchased with the help of government subsidies.
President Obama has stood firm on his decision to maintain the status quo by not allowing federal funding for abortions, a measure that would quickly incite the wrath of many conservatives. But pro-choice members of congress worry that the bill actually shuts women out of the option to have abortions covered in their plans.
Co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, says that under the current bill women are being asked to make an unfair choice between the elimination of gender discrimination in health care and “the basic right to coverage of their core health needs.”
Wait a minute: let's ask ourselves something. Is abortion really a “core health need,” or is abortion rather a “luxury” that many women take for granted? In my opinion, the right to basic health care coverage simply means that as an American citizen I should receive access to reliable, inexpensive insurance no matter what my gender or job situation is. The current bill aims to achieve just that, generally by expanding health care options, and specifically by making it illegal for companies to deny women coverage based on conditions such as age or previous reproductive health history.
In my opinion, the Obama administration is doing the right thing in not actively endorsing abortion, as it remains a morally debatable issue and state laws vary. But as these agitated members of congress need to remember, the current bill certainly still allows women the option to elect to pay for a plan that includes coverage for abortions. As it now stands, the bill does not restrict women’s less controversial and more fundamental “right to choose” - their insurance plans.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree, that makes perfect sense: no one is obligated to have sex. But in cases of rape, it's different. A woman becomes pregnant against her will, and thus she should have access to government-funded health care, even government-funded abortions. The reason is that the reason for free health insurance is that it's often not a person's fault whether they get sick. In one case, it is based on a decision by the woman, but in another case it is not. The government obviously shouldn't force anyone to get an abortion (there's nothing wrong with letting a woman have a baby if she wants to). In addition, the government has no public health interest in giving abortions, at least until the US has population problems, which it currently doesn't have.
However, it is only the female that have to become pregnant and carry the children. Since men does not have that need, they surely will not consider that as a basic necessity. Nevertheless, for women, especially in rape case or in cases where the contraception method fail (It is possible!), we can not just simply claim that abortion is a luxury. For example, in Rawls' theory, if people in the OP are genderless, they might imagine themselves in the shoes of a pregnant female unable to cover the cost for abortion.
Post a Comment