Abortion funding should be covered
November 13, 2009
Saturday, the House passed a health care reform bill with a stipulation that no federal money can be used to pay for abortions.
An amendment would ban coverage of abortions for those who enroll in a new government-funded insurance plan and those who qualify for government subsidies to buy private policies. Abortion coverage would be allowed in cases of rape or incest and to save a woman’s life.
Women can choose to buy a separate abortion coverage plan using their own money.
Why should my hard-earned tax dollars pay for some other woman’s abortion?
Because I support a woman’s right to choose.
Because I trust women of all ages, races, nationalities, sexual orientations and socioeconomic statuses to make the decision that is best for them, their families and their circumstances.
Because a woman shouldn’t be denied a legal health procedure because she can’t pay for it. (An abortion can cost anywhere from $350 to $900 in the first trimester, not including complications.)
Because pregnancy should not be a threat or a punishment for being sexual.
Because a pregnancy should not be something to fear.
Because the seriousness of choosing to have a child or not cannot be decided by splitting hairs on the floor of Congress.
Because even though the government health plan covers abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, what if the attacker is my husband?
Because a woman is more than a vessel for children and a man is more than a sower of them.
Because abortion isn’t always the answer.
Because I want a doctor who can concentrate on my needs, rather than regulations or a pay plan.
Because programs that provide important health services for women should not be restricted simply because they give women all their options for family planning, including abortion.
Because many women are sexually active.
Because you are a sexually active woman. Or might be in the future.
Because accidents happen — condoms break, pills are forgotten — but they don’t have to define a person forever.
Because you have had an abortion. Or thought about it. Or know someone who has.
Because abortions are more common than you think. (Planned Parenthood says one in three women have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.)
Because abortions should not be secret, and pregnancies should not be shameful.
Because I value women’s lives; if someone chooses this procedure, I want it done safely, with both her physical and mental health as a top concern and in the best hands.
Because I value women’s potential and their futures — in careers, in families — and want them to have every opportunity to reach them in their own way, on their own time, and on their own terms.
Jessica Fuller is asSecond-year journalism graduate student from Greensboro. Email her at jvfuller@gmail.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Most Commented
Breaking News
Be the first to know when breaking news occurs.
The Daily Tar Heel newsletter
Subscribe to our daily newsletter that includes the top stories of the day.
"Because even though the
"Because even though the government health plan covers abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, what if the attacker is my husband?"
.... In 1978 the very first "husband rapes wife" case was decided and the guy was convicted. Not sure if you meant having consensual sex with the husband and then choosing to abort--by calling him the "attacker." But seriously. It is possible for a husband to be convicted of raping his wife and happens more than you'd think. Seriously. Do a little research.
"Because pregnancy should not
"Because pregnancy should not be a threat or a punishment for being sexual."
"Because you have had an abortion. Or thought about it. Or know someone who has."
These "arguments" are so pathetic they defy description. The issue with abortion is quite simple. There are only two questions to answer. (1) Is the fetus a human being, and (2) do human beings have a right to not be killed? The answer to the first question is indisputably yes. It's a scientific fact that the embryo or fetus is a separate member of the species homo sapiens - they have brain waves, a beating heart, and a unique DNA code. The second question, to any moral person, should also be very easy to answer when the subject in question is an innocent non-combatant.
This is not to say that this isn't a contentious and serious debate - but argument based on feelings and slogans like this laundry list only reduce the debate to just that - feelings and slogans.
What a pathetic and contemptible article.
Does the baby get a say in
Does the baby get a say in the matter?
How can this article be the
How can this article be the product of a second-year journalism graduate student? I mean this isn't an article; it's a list. Opinion or not, an article written in a college newspaper, or really any newspaper, needs to demonstrate a certain minimum maturity in its style and method of argument to fully convey a useful point to the readers. Otherwise, you are Gary the PIt Preacher, making baseless accusations and going from topic to topic with little logic or justification. In the future, please give important issues, such as abortion, more respect in your treatment of them by at least writing an article, instead of this grocery list that you wrote ten minutes before deadline.
I found the laundry-list
I found the laundry-list style effective, actually. Kudos to Ms. Fuller.
Ungrateful. I do not agree
Ungrateful.
I do not agree with your stance. I think the health care debate has dragged on long enough. The House accomplished a huge bipartisanship milestone. This is a compromise. In cases of rape, incest, and endangerment to the mother's life, abortion WILL be covered. This is a fair agreement.
Abortion is a choice as you said. It is completely unnecessary - there are other options out there. With soaring infertility rates, adoption is always a solid decision. If you decide to have sex, you also decide to make yourself more likely to become pregnant. You have made a choice, so don't put the burden on everyone else.
Our tax dollars should not go to someone that wants to make choices about their sexual activities, and then choose to terminate the consequences. If you want the abortion, fork over the money.
The health care bill will be a costly endeavor for this country. With the slumping economy, the last thing that needs to come out of my wallet is more money for people that CHOOSE to have an abortion. Your life is not in jeopardy, you were not raped, and you were not abused by a family member. Be glad that your abortion will be covered in many cases. Applaud the fact that most Americans will get coverage when they NEED medical attention and support.
Soaring infertility rates?
Soaring infertility rates? What about soaring hunger and poverty rates because parents have more children than they can afford? What about soaring population rates in general? What about the millions of children each year who do not get adopted already? Do you really think creating more parentless children is the answer?
What about soaring obesity rates? Isn't overeating and not exercising enough also a choice? Why should my tax dollars have to go to pay for other people's obesity-caused diabetes, heart conditions, or high blood pressure? What about those choices?
What about the fact that pre-natal care and a hospital birth cost FAR more than the average abortion? How is that cost effective from any tax dollar standpoint?
I don't remember getting a
I don't remember getting a say in whether or not my tax dollars are earmarked for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can we get a vote on that, please?
But in all seriousness, the people who voted in favor of this amendment are, for the most part, the ones who keep whining about the government interfering in their lives and their health care. But it's okay to interfere in MY life and MY health care and MY choices?
Being fully aware that this
Being fully aware that this is an opinion piece, I must admit that several statements of opinion do not make sense to me.
"Because I support a woman's right to choose." This statement immediately begs the question, should people who believe abortion is murder be required to pay for that with their taxes? And, what if this person is a woman, who is trustworthy enough to "make the decision that is best for them" but their decision is to have no part in abortion?
"Because pregnancy should not be a threat or a punishment for being sexual." I could be misinterpreting this but it seems unclear to me how else babies are born other than through acts of sexuality. Having sex creates children, every human alive knows this to be true and has lived the experience first hand. To say pregnancy is a punishment and a threat honestly sounds silly, it is just the natural product of sexuality. Sex does have meaning beyond child birth, but to think that getting pregnant is not a likely possibility every time you have sex is a false reality.
"Because a pregnancy should not be something to fear." I agree. Do not fear that having a child will ruin your life to the point that you must abort it. That is a crippling fear many women struggle with, but the solution is not a quick fix abortion, it is a deep heart issue. Do not forget that your life could have more potential than what you have planned for yourself. It is not a given that an unplanned child will be a curse, but could be the greatest blessing. Is it possible that the plan you have for yourself is not always the best one? You don't have to agree with me, but it is worth noting that a fear driven decision is most likely an unwise one. "Pregnancy should not be shameful" but the option of abortion is not the only way that this is possible.
excellent response. i would
excellent response. i would like to add just one little point. adoption is a brilliant alternative to abortion. People who can't have kids would love to have your unwanted byproduct, i mean, child.
"Why should my hard-earned
"Why should my hard-earned tax dollars pay for some other woman’s abortion? Because I support a woman’s right to choose."
I can see that the irony of this inherent contradiction is lost on you. When you take someone's income by taxes, you *decrease* the number of things they can buy. That means *less* choice, not just in healthcare but across the board. By supporting government-sponsored abortion coverage, you effectively make women's choices for them: they will get abortion coverage, but they will be forced to give up income they could use to buy something else which might be more appealing to them.
In summary, you're unintentionally advocating less choice for America's women.
Good. Since your arguments in
Good. Since your arguments in this piece are contingent on your opinion, maybe you should lobby Congress to tax pro-choice people more to pay for the things that you advocate in your column.