Abortion and Healthcare Reform
by: Valerie Elverton-Dixon on March 8th, 2010 | 2 Comments »
Abortion is a difficult subject. It has divided our nation for many years. It requires us to think about difficult questions. When does life begin? To whom is the state primarily responsible, the woman who is its citizen or to her unborn child? How do we balance our moral obligations to both? What is the role of believers in the respect and the protection of both the mother and child?
Further, we ought not to forget the history of abortion in the United States. First wave feminists of the nineteenth century opposed abortion because the medical procedure was dangerous to women. They thought woman’s lack of personal freedom was the root causes for her need for an abortion. They believed that many women were forced to seek abortions because of men not wanting to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. Around 1820, states started to pass laws prohibiting abortions and by 1900 abortion was illegal in most states. By 1965, all states had outlawed abortion. However while abortions were illegal, women nevertheless sought abortions. Sometimes they tried to perform abortions on themselves with often tragic consequences. Many women sought illegal abortions from abortionists.
The illegality of the procedure put women at the mercy of unscrupulous people. They were charged high fees; sometimes male providers demanded sexual favors; women were often victims of hemorrhage and infection. Because of the secrecy illegality required, women were emotionally isolated. In the 1950s, thousands of women died, suffered abdominal infections, chronic illness and emotional stress.
Between 1967 and 1970 various states began to loosen restrictions on abortion. In 1970, New York State allowed abortion on demand through the 24th week as long as it was performed in a medical facility by a doctor. This was a period in women’s history in the United States when women often ran a kind of Underground Railroad, helping women who lived in states where abortion was not allowed to get to states where they could obtain a safe and legal abortion. In 1973, in the Roe v Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that anti abortion laws were unconstitutional. This made abortions legal throughout the United States, but very often low income, rural and or young women did not have access to the procedure.
In 1976-1977 the Hyde Amendment became law. It prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This is one of a series of steps to restrict abortion in the United States. Anti-abortion forces, pro-life forces, have used civil disobedience in front of clinics to make their argument, and extreme pro-life activists have resorted to murder of doctors who perform abortions, especially late term abortions.
We are at the do or die moment of the healthcare debate. In his March 3 statement on healthcare reform, President Obama said that we have exhausted debate on this topic. It is time for Congress to vote and for the nation to turn its attention to other legislative matters. I agree with the President. Yet, there is one sticking point that needs resolution: what does healthcare reform mean for abortion? Will federal money go to fund abortion services? Some Democrats in the House of Representatives and Republicans in both houses seem to think that federal money can be used to pay for abortions. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says that the Senate bill adheres to the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal money for abortion services.
I went to Library of Congress web site to read the Senate bill – S. 1796 America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. I found that the Hyde Amendment, though not named, remains in force. In Section 2245– Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services– prohibits federal funding of abortions according to current law. Paragraph (2)(A) says: “The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal Funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.” Paragraph (2)(B) says the same thing except it provides for when federal funding for abortion is permitted. Again it is “based on the law as in effect.”
This section further states: “nothing in this subpart shall be construed to require a health benefits plan to provide coverage of services described in paragraph (2)(A) or (2)(B) as part of its essential benefits package for any plan year.” Regarding the health insurance exchanges, the law requires at least one plan that offers abortion services and one that does not. On the prohibition of the use of federal funds, insurance plans that offer abortion services may not use tax credits or any cost sharing subsidy. The bill calls for the segregation of funds.
This reform does not preempt state law. It says: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State law regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.” The law also keeps intact non discrimination provisions for people who refuse to perform abortions.
When considering the ethics of abortion, we can make the case that the fetus is a human being who carries the image of God and who therefore ought to be protected from harm. This is a religious argument that presupposes the existence of God. It is an argument for the individual conscience of women, not an argument for the state. Further, such an argument requires people who make it to take responsibility for helping to care for children after they leave the confines of the womb. The question for the state is whether or not a fetus is a person who ought to be protected by the state? Does a fetus have rights? Does the state owe protection to the woman and protection of her right to decide what happens inside her own body? Those of us who believe that women ought to have a right to a safe and legal abortion, and that healthcare insurance ought to cover the procedure have compromised our position for the sake of passing healthcare reform. I support this legislation even with the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment because the overall goal of passing comprehensive healthcare reform is important. People who think abortion is immoral ought to compromise and maintain the status quo on federal funding for abortions.
Women’s history tells us what happens when women do not have access to safe and legal abortions. Women die. The good news about expanding healthcare coverage is that when women are making healthy choices day to day about their reproductive health, they will be better able to avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus the need for abortions. Abortion is always a tragedy. It would be a tragedy upon tragedy if a misreading or mischaracterization of the text of the Senate bill causes healthcare reform to fail.
At age 88, retired, and a worker for universal/single payer health care, I look back to my days as an internal medicine resident in the 1940s. At that time Roe v Wade was still in the future. These were the days of “coat-hanger” abortions. I recall watching three women die of clostridium sepis, i.e. the bacteria that causes gas gangrene invading the blood stream due to a perforation of the uterus. These unfortunate folks swelled up like a balloon, had unrelenting pain, finally became stuperous and finally happily died. (this was the pre-antibiotic era ) Abortion dates back to , at least, the neolithic period of human pre-history, and will always be an option to those unfortunate enough to become pregnant thru ignorance or lack of discretion.
Let us try and be reasonable. It is not a politicians right to decide for a woman as to her own body. It is time to educate the American public re sexuality including instruction re contraception. The Europeans have done a much better job as
evidenced by their lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and STD; ergo, it can be done. Of course the introduction of the abortion issue into the current debate re “health care” in Washington was in part a subtle move on the part of the health insurance industry to involve the Copuncil of Bishops and the “Right To Lifers”—those folks who express great concern for the foetus but never speak up for child poverty, children’s health issues, or appear within the anti-war movement.
I beg your pardon, lumping pro-lifers into people who don’t support efforts to end child poverty nor anti-war movements. And in Arkansas, though I am not one of his fans, Gov. Mike Huckabee began an “Our Kids First” healthcare program to help uninsured children get insurance coverage. Mr. Huckabee happens to be one of the most outspoken pro-lifers from Arkansas! And though it is tragic that back in the 1940′s there wasn’t the support for unwed expectant mothers that there is today and women died due to coat hangers, many many more women today suffer terrible mental ordeals and even commit suicide due to past abortions. You “feel good” doctors have no clue, esp. you male ones, about the mental make up of women. No, it is not a politicians right to decide for a woman as to her own body, unless she decides to murder someone, whether it be her 1 year old, 20 year old, or 2 month old in the womb. Yes, we women have a choice, and that choice is that if we decide to be in an intimate relationship, we might possibly conceive a child. We will never be the country that Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of in his dream until ALL life has rights. Thanks to people like you, THE most dangerous place to be in this country isn’t in the ghettos of Harlem or Chicago or in the gang ridden areas of any city, but in the womb. Truly a sad commentary on the state of our world. You are 88 years old, Dr. Keister, and closer than me, most likely, to meeting your Maker, whether or not you believe. How will you answer?