The Republican Approach to Abortion and Health Care -- Fair or Unfair?

In his "chairman's mark" on health care reform, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus had rejected the pure pro-choice position -- he limited direct government funding for abortion -- but still included provisions that pro-lifers viewed as supporting abortion.

Republicans have offered several amendments to move the health care bill in a more pro-life direction.

Republican Senators Michael Enzi and Orren Hatch have proposed that:

1) Government tax subsidies could not help people buy insurance that covers abortion. (Enzi and Hatch)

2) Insurers could (as they can now) offer consumers the ability to purchase, with their own money, insurance supplementals that do cover abortion. (Hatch)

3) State insurance exchanges could not be required to offer plans covering abortion. (Enzi)

I'm going to analyze this not from the perspective of whether this is morally good or bad but whether it basically accepts the status quo approach to abortion, which prohibits direct federal funding for abortion but allows some indirect support.

On the first point, they are being consistent to the pro-life position and to the status quo. The Finance committee bill would provide subsidies directly from the Treasury to health plan, so preventing that from covering abortion would be consistent with current practice

On the second, let's remember that even pro-choice Democrats accept the idea that, at least in terms of this health care bill, pro-life citizens shouldn't see their taxdollars going to subsidize abortion. Democrats attempted to do that through a system in which money would be segregated into different accounts so taxpayer dollars wouldn't fund abortion. Hatch took a different approach: while the basic insurance plan wouldn't cover abortion, insurance companies could offer consumers the option of buying, with their own money, a supplemental insurance plan covering abortion.

Though pro-lifers attacked the Democratic approach as a scandalous assault on human life, and Democrats will no doubt attack the Republican approach as a scandalous assault on freedom, they actually are trying to achieve the same goal.

In my opinion, the Republican approach is simpler and cleaner (I actually advocated for something like this a few weeks back.) But it does have flaws. For instance, it may be unrealistic to expect that women will be thinking about the prospect of abortion when they're buying health insurance. Also, oftentimes, the policyholder is not the beneficiary. A woman might buy the supplemental but will a father who has a teenage daughter decide to buy the supplemental?

On the third item, Enzi did something that definitely moves government policy away from the status quo in a markedly pro-life direction. The Senate bill (as well as the key house bill) had a provision that local insurance exchanges be required to offer at least one plan that covers abortion and one that doesn't. Democrats viewed this as an innovation in fair-mindedness. No one would be forced to buy a plan that violates their ethical code.

Enzi deleted the part saying that exchanges would have to offer abortion-covering plans -- but left in the clause saying they'd be forced to offer no-abortion-coverage plans! This is a definite departure from current practice and a push of state laws in the pro-life direction.

Reprinted from Beliefnet.com

 

 

Comments

[been2there]

Calling this position "pro-life" is a lie. It is anti-choice--and there is a difference. If we do not establish as a legal priciple the rights of the pregnant person's choice, then we will see the day when abortions are required for such babies as Trig Palin. I do not want to see that choice taken away. So tell the darn truth about positions--it is about choice, not life!

[ludmilla]

I can sort of understand why pro-lifers wouldn't want to pay for abortions with their tax dollars. But if their ultimate goal is to reduce the incentive for getting an abortion in the first place, wouldn't the more proactive approach be to require insurance to cover the full cost of prenatal care and childbirth, which costs 10 to 20 times as much as an abortion? Oh, and maybe cover birth control as well?

[incognito-ergo-sum]

Well, no matter what, some abortions are medically necessary, even for that icon of the American right; the married pregnant conservative woman.

How will she and her conservative husband like paying the bills for an abortion that saved her life? this is what makes liberals, real life.

[sdskelton03]

There are very, very few who have problems with a medically necessary abortion.

[ZTB]

based on?
either way....not every abortion is performed "by choice".
There are many many reasons...­medical and otherwise that make it
"neccessary" for the woman who has to make that difficult decision.
and yes.....it is always a difficult decision.

[zola77]

Not true. It is actually the opposite. People have loads of problems with abortion even when it is medically necessary.

There is a real life component to this debate that pro-lifers are missing. Some simple reading would go far in informing you.

[TuoulumneFlower]

Her conservative husband would no doubt refuse to save her life, anyway. According to them, women have no right to life. Death is but their proper due if a pregnancy goes wrong or is unwanted.

[khg1]

Why haven't they learned from other counties that not covering Abortion & Birth Control has far reaching consequences?

Iran banned all forms of birth control after their "Revolution". After 25 years their population has QUADRUPLED, with the majority of people under the age of 25. They have since lifted the ban - but too late. They have massive unemployment of the young, can't feed all their citizens, prostitution has become rampant as has human trafficking. The Iranians have since embraced a form of religiously sanctioned temporary marriage called ‘sighe’ or ‘mot'e’ and which can last a few hours or decades, supposedly as a sexual outlet for young people. Except the men who are most commonly involved already have a wife, or wives (the law allows up to 4 wives).

[Eve-Scofield]

I love to watch men in government debate about enforced breeding. When men can get pregnant, then you have the right to offer an opinion. (at which point, there will be no debate - abortion will be covered like viagra) Until then, keep your laws off our reproductive organs.

[Isis N]

Exactly... Since when do men have the physical capabilities to give birth? Oh, that's right, they DON'T! They just have the ability to get Viagra when they no longer can force their bodies to allow them to have sex.

[balmora]

You know, I would hope, that those babies didn't spontaneously appear inside the womb. For every abortion being preformed there is a father. So how can you say that men have no say in the matter of abortions?