Although pro-choice politicians played down for months the concern of abortion in the health care reform bills, the abortion issue raised its head in a fierce battle in the U.S. House of Representatives over the weekend. The House adopted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which says a government-run public insurance plan can not include abortion, nor can federal funds pay subsidies for private insurance plans, which include coverage for abortions.
The restriction on abortion comes as a pleasant surprise and shows some leaders in Congress at least have some of their priorities straight.
However, the amendment has not passed without a great deal of controversy. President Barack Obama, for example, voiced opposition against the amendment and called for a revision in the coming weeks of lawmaking in the Senate to deliver a final health care reform bill. Pro-choice representatives also voiced strong contention about being ambushed by pro-lifers at the last minute.
The fallout of the abortion issue actually shows us how nonsensical politics can be.
Both sides of the issue claim all they want is to preserve current law, that is, the Hyde Amendment prohibition of federal funds used to pay for abortions. For months, pro-life politicians and activists railed about how the Hyde Amendment was going to be overshadowed by broad health care reforms which would provide extensive federal support for abortions.
Since the Stupak-Pitts Amendment has gone through the House, pro-choice politicians and activists are now arguing abortion restrictions would go further than current law, as it would prevent women who receive federal subsidies from purchasing even private insurance which covers abortion. Not to mention the fact the proposed public plan, which would help provide insurance to many people who cannot afford it right now, would exclude coverage for abortion.
A New York Times editorial said, “The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure.”
Perhaps the faulty logic in both camps is both sides say they simply want to preserve the current laws on abortion when such a thing is impossible to do. In a way, critics like The New York Times are right when they say the restrictions go beyond current law, but the catch is they only go beyond current law in as much as health care reform itself goes beyond current law.
The point of health care reform is to provide more federal assistance with which Americans can buy affordable health insurance. Naturally, if federal funds are going to increase, so should the restrictions on federally funded abortions, or so it seems to opponents of abortion. However, this is a problem for abortion proponents, in that it would indeed represent a significant turning point in favor of pro-life.
And when the president says this is not an abortion bill, he is dead wrong. Abortion has been a key issue in health care reform from the beginning.
Obama told Planned Parenthood in July 2007, “In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose . Essentially, what we’re doing is to say that we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.”
For years, abortion has been a backburner issue. Now it is gaining spotlight and importance as America makes some of the most pivotal decisions it will ever make. It can’t be ignored until a better time. Now is the time we will either continue standing up for the rights of the unborn or continue prizing death over life.
Matt Watson is a graduate student majoring in Spanish. He can be contacted at [email protected].