For the next couple of months, we're going to hear a lot of debate about the anti-abortion amendment attached to the House bill. Letters in yesterday's NYT were mostly about this.
Feminists and reproductive health activists are decrying the amended bill as though it had suddenly outlawed abortions. Now, I know the practical argument that lack of funding will mean lack of access for many women. But this bill does not in fact outlaw abortion any more than it outlaws any other elective procedure that it does not fund, like cosmetic surgery or psychoanalysis.
And wait -- I am not equating them, except in the sense of their being procedures that are permissible under the law but not funded by the government. In my opinion, there are very good reasons for covering one and not the other. But that is not the argument right now: it's the false claim that lack of funding makes it illegal.
It does not. And when you make a bad argument, it hurts your good argument. Remember Obama's line: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill."
On the verge of finally achieving universal health care coverage, lack of "pre-existing conditions," and no cancellation of policies, we should not confuse the two. What we want is health care reform. Changing the status quo regarding abortion must not be allowed to derail this vital legislation.
Some will argue that it does not maintain the status quo. That's true in some details, and some or all of those details could be changed in conference committee. But the federal government does not currently pay for abortions except in some indirect ways. So it is not "the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades," as some critics claim.
Let's just keep our heads clear about this so we can get health care reform -- with coverage for abortions, if possible; but, if not, let's save the abortion fight for another day. Just remember, if you insist on abortion coverage, and the bill fails, all those who are currently uninsured still won't be covered for abortion.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My point is illustrated in today's news: NARAL is sending out automated calls to constituents of swing-vote senators, asking them to urge their senators to oppose "the abortion ban."
ReplyDeleteAnd a picture from a rally shows professionally made signs that say "Keep Abortion Legal."
I agree with wanting medically-necessary abortions to be covered by insurance. And I want very much for it to remain legal.
But that is not what this bill is about, and it undermines the larger argument to engage in inaccurate implications.
That is a Republican-type strategy that we all detest. It's beneath NARAL and the progressive movement.