Abortion and the Health Care Debate

I was listening to a news program interview on health care, and the host asked both guests (one from the Obama administration, another from the GOP) whether a Federally funded health care scheme should use taxpayer money for abortion.

I have a simple answer: Yes.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure. If we're going to refuse coverage for it, what other legal procedures should we also refuse to fund? And on what grounds?

Many people have religious objections to abortion, and that they should not have their taxes used to fund something which goes against their beliefs. Should we also oppose funding blood transfusions, out of respect for Jehovah's Witnesses? Should we oppose funding psychiatric treatment because it goes against Scientology?

The main argument is that abortion involves the taking of a human life, and therefore should not be financed with taxpayer money. I'd love it if our government never paid to have a life taken -- but we already do. Every casualty of war, every suspect shot by police, and every murderer executed, is paid for by tax dollars. Should we give people the option to check off on their income tax forms that they don't want their share of the tax pool to go to these activities?

My question for those who oppose funding abortion: What is your alternative? So many who oppose funding abortion are also opposed to funding contraception, comprehensive sex education, child care for single mothers and so forth, one has to wonder what practical policies they would favor -- or even if they do.

In the end, the more important question is making sure that every American can get the health care they need. The choice of which procedures to have should be left to patients, in consultation with their health care providers. And if those opposed to abortion do not want it chosen, then they should be willing to make as many alternatives as possible available to all, and especially those options which would prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion to begin with.

I can't think of anything more ethical -- or more American -- than giving every person the power to choose how best to deal with their family's health, even if the choices they make may not be mine, or my choices theirs.

The Politics and Morality of Plan B

Today, the Food and Drug Administration announced that seventeen year olds will be able to get the Plan B emergency contraception over the counter.

Certainly a step forward! Personally, I'd like to see the age limit brought down to sixteen, and having Plan B as a fully-funded option for all victims of rape everywhere.

And I can hear the leaders of America's Religious Right screaming about teenagers getting access to an "abortion drug". So, let's set the record on that:
1) It takes three days for sperm to travel through the cervix, up the uterus and into the fallopian tubes to fertilize an ova.
2) Plan B can only work during those three days.
3) Ergo, Plan B is contraception -- it prevents pregnancy.

Of course, I don't expect everyone who is against abortion to have this "V-8 moment", smacking their foreheads and saying: "Wow, we made a big mistake here!" It's no secret that so many on the Right have bundled abortion, birth control and sex education into one big nasty evil.

Forget about women who are raped. Or teens living with abusive parents, with good reason to be afraid of disclosing that they might become pregnant. Or women who were responsible enough to have their partners use a condom, only to have it break or slip off.

I recall conversations with an evangelical minister who is staunchly anti-abortion, when he used to live in the Boston area (he's since moved to Connecticut). I'd always pose the question of contraception -- why not support it, since it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce the number of abortions? His response, every time: "Well, many forms of contraception lead to abortion." And nothing else -- no elabortation, no examples of how this supposedly happens, no statement in favor of any which don't lead to abortion. Just a sufficiently vague reason why he won't break with the party line of the Religious Right.

Well, that only begs the question. Sure, you can argue that IUD's, for example, "lead to abortion" by preventing implantation and thus causing a zygote to be expelled and die. But condoms, spermicide, diaphragms, cervical caps -- all they do is block sperm from getting to the egg. No sperm in egg, no conception, no dead zygote. So why lump it in with abortion? And if Plan B accomplishes the same thing -- preventing sperm and egg from getting together -- then why keep calling it abortion?

These are the questions we need to be raising with the Religious Right. Plan B is not abortion, but in fact will reduce the number of abortions, as will condoms and other forms of contraception. So where is their justification in opposing them?