On November 7th, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act. If you’d like to read the summary from Capitol Hill, click here. We’re looking at something not covered by the bill, but 
has caused quite a stir in the conversation on healthcare reform.
Roe v. Wade (1973) gave American women the right to choose, within certain temporal guidelines, whether or not to bear a child. It has proven itself, in a relatively short time, one of the most contentious legal decisions ever. The debate gets pretty nasty – we’re talking nasty on the level of killed – when people’s religious and ideological angst passes the boiling point. Unfortunately, what’s often overlooked is the civil debate that rises from the language of Roe v. Wade.
The key word here is “right.” We tend to think of rights as things that are free, and we tend to be upset when things we’ve taken for granted suddenly cost more than we would have ever dreamed. One example: rights to freedom and privacy, to which nobody gave much thought, exploded into the national discussion a few years ago in the debate surrounding the Patriot Act.
The issue with healthcare reform is somewhat similar. The language of Roe v. Wade reads “right,” yet the House’s version of healthcare reform explicitly denies federally funded abortion – to a certain extent. Currently, the law does allow federal funding for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or if it’s necessary to extend the life of the mother. In addition, the House bill allows people the option of buying supplemental coverage to put towards abortions. Rights activists continue to balk at the provision, stating that failure to include all abortions under the new plan will restrict women’s rights to reproductive health.
Interestingly, despite the petition by 90 House Democrats to change the language of the act in favor of all-inclusive abortions, all but one voted for the restricted version.
Politically, it’s fairly easy to see why the healthcare reform bill places restrictions on abortion. Conservatives are typically pro-life, whereas liberals are typically pro-choice. There are some who flip flop, but for the most part it seems like the provisions on abortion are set up to garner the most support for what many see as the greater good of overall healthcare reform.
What do you think?
Posted by Tyler on November 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm.
interesting topic I think the exclusion of federally funded abortion with the exception of the conditions mentioned are fair…I am pro-life and I do believe that life begins at conception, seeing that the embryo/fetus is a separate entity from the mother….I don’t see why the government would advocate the taking of life and include coverage for all types of abortion…I think the government proposing the buying supplemental coverage to put towards abortions is fair in that it will place more responsibility on citizens for their actions
Tyler, I think you’re correct in that the key word here is “right”. The Roe court defined the right to abortion as stemming from a general right to privacy, that is, a right to not have the government interfere with decisions one makes regarding their body. However, that does not entail that a person has the right to have the government pay for the exercising of that right. In other words, just because a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion doesn’t mean that the government has to pay for it under a national heath coverage plan. I am pro-choice, but would agree with Syddel that the government does not necessarily have to cover abortions in order to protect a woman’s constitutional rights. Whether or not abortions are covered should be a legislative matter, not a judicial one.