rssReducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage
Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm
- 13 Comments
Among the myriad criticisms that opponents of the Democrats’ health reform bills have leveled at the legislation, perhaps none resonates as strongly as the emotionally charged claims about how the proposals approach abortion coverage. For almost 35 years, federal law has prohibited the federal funding of abortions, and the critics of this year’s reform proposals contend that the Senate bill would loosen that decades-old restriction.
Never mind, for a moment, that the Senate bill would force women to write separate premium checks each month — one for abortion coverage and one for all other health care services — and that insurers would be required to segregate those funds to ensure that no federal subsidies dribbled into the abortion pot. One longtime health care reporter yesterday pointed out another reason that the critics have missed the mark by citing abortion as the reason to oppose health reform: Expanded coverage reduces abortion rates.
“Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions — a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations,” T.R. Reid, veteran reporter for The Washington Post and author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care, wrote in the Post Sunday.
“All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States. This is not a coincidence.”
Reid cites figures compiled by the United Nations to make his point. In places where the government has steeped in to guarantee coverage for everyone, abortion rates are much lower than those in the United States.
Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8.
“When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world,” Reid notes dryly, “we’re No. 1.”
To understand why, look no further than the explanation provided to Reid by the late Cardinal Basil Hume, a senior official of England’s Catholic Church during Reid’s tenure in London some time back.
“If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed,” Hume explained, “she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?”
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who previously represented Illinois in the House for 14 years, also recently blasted the anti-abortion crowd for citing the hot-button issue as a reason to oppose health reform. Writing in the Chicago Tribune Sunday, LaHood said he feels “compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion.”
It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I’m comfortable supporting this bill.
13 Comments
Pingback posted March 15, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
[...] Continue reading here: Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The Washington … [...]
Pingback posted March 15, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
[...] Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The Washington … [...]
Trackback posted March 15, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage http://bit.ly/bSAjHz...
Comment posted March 15, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
This story is completely misleading… the US has a high abortion rate because organizations like Planned Parenthood (with heavy federal funding) actively encourage abortion, especially among Black women.
The US is a backwards nation in the respect that its society views pregnancy as a malady to be cured, especially in the lower socioeconomic classes. The US has an unofficial caste system that discourages reproduction by any but the upper castes. This fundamental disrespect for life will not be altered by any of the suggestions made by the author.
Cardinal Hume's hypothetical frightened, pregnant 19-year old will have no incentive to carry the pregnancy to term knowing that she will not be able to support her child in a ruined economy. She will look around and see that there are no jobs, and no hope of supporting a family, and no amount of government insurance subsidy will make up for that.
Pingback posted March 15, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
[...] Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The Washington … [...]
Pingback posted March 15, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
[...] Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The Washington … [...]
Comment posted March 15, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
This argument fails to recognize the fundamental human rights principle of indivisibility. Under this principle of international human rights law, no government or health system may routinely sacrifice the lives of some human beings (in this case, children at risk of federally funded abortion) to improve the lives of others. You can't trade off better health care for some unborn babies at the price of lethal medical treatments for others made more accessible throught federal funding.
The truth is that abortion remains a psuedo-medical procedure that has no place in genuine health care systems..
Comment posted March 15, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
children at risk of federally funded abortion=intellectual dishonesty. You wouldn't know the truth if it whacked you in your religiosity benighted head.
Pingback posted March 16, 2010 @ 1:31 am
[...] Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The pedagogue … [...]
Pingback posted March 16, 2010 @ 1:32 am
[...] Reducing Abortions by Expanding Health Coverage « The pedagogue … [...]
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 2:39 am
That would be a nice argument, your belligerence not withstanding… if you actually offered an argument.
What Rita says about abortion being a pseudo-medical procedure hits pretty close to the mark. Americans tend to view pregnancy similarly with disease and injury, except that pregnancy is considered to be more inconvenience than a life-threatening.
Abortion in the United States has its roots in eugenics (“…human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger writing about immigrants and the poor, Pivot of Civilization). Despite such an ignominious beginning, America continues to embrace abortion because it is simply too convenient to abandon.
Instead, we rationalize abortion as a means to release women from the burdens of childbearing, giving everyone, male and female alike, the freedom to behave as they choose without consequence. So a valid question is, who exactly is being dishonest?
Here is my theory:
It is interesting that men are such vocal proponents of “freedom of choice”. There is certainly a tyranny of gender at work, but it is not what is being advertised. The truth is that many men (a majority?) want women to be free to engage in sex without the consequences of pregnancy, not for the woman's sake, but for their own. The eugenic approach that was originally intended to cleanse society of inferior elements, is convenient to the selfish male agenda of maintaining dominance over women. Those in the feminist movements have been suckered into adopting this view, thinking that “reproductive rights” offer a measure of freedom. This could not be further from the truth.
@strangely_enough: You can tell me I'm wrong, but try to do so without name calling and with a rational argument to back up your view.
Comment posted March 16, 2010 @ 2:53 am
@strangely_enough: I also detect a less than subtle note of frustration that you had no opportunity to unleash a canned diatribe on someone's religious viewpoint. That's too bad, because “religiosity” is such a great adjective, and I'm sure you would really have shown everyone just how pointless their faith is.
Comment posted May 11, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
This is very good news as it is the globe population isn't what it used to be. Lets hope that will all change with this new health coverage. Maybe there will be less people who die from O.D.'s and a lot more places like vista bay drug rehab.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
