This article in the New York Times speaks about the issue regarding abortion. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding whether or not taxpayers should be responsible to pay for elective abortions. Those who are against abortion have been fighting vigorously to block lower-income people from receiving insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using that money on plans that cover abortion. Those who are against it do not believe we as taxpayers have enough money to be casually throwing it towards abortions and therefore are on Obama's back about it. President Obama has still not given a clear answer as to whether not this will be forced upon taxpayers but has shown an abortion-right attitude in the past. Though Democratic Congressional leaders say, "the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit and the current ban on federal abortion financing." Thus, to pay for abortions insurers could only use money from private sources. With that on their side, there have been numerous phone calls and letters written to the House in hopes to prevent this from changing. Many democrats have insisted on blocking the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions. One major complaint on the abortion-right side is that the women who already have the coverage we are fighting, would completely lose it. For many of them, this would mean giving up on insurance at all. Although that is most likely true, and unfair for those it affects, many more people would be affected by the taxpayer money spent on abortions. In an economy like the one we live in today, it is irrational to expect a bill asking for more money, to pass. That is one of the main arguments found in this article. The fact that no extra money exists anywhere today in the United States. Although Obama is an advocate of this pro-abortion healthcare plan, he needs to also encompass the bigger picture and how that extra money would affect those who don't have money to spend.
Abortion
I think this is a really interesting topic because it begins to question whether taxpayers should have to pay to fund services that they believe to be immoral. Abortion is something that people tend to feel very strongly about, whether they are for or against it. I think Courtney is right when she said that it was unrealistic to expect a bill to pass asking for more money in this economy. However, abortion is still a medical procedure. If we allowed taxpayers to get out of paying for every government service they did not believe in, our country would be in pretty terrible shape.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting article and clearly there needs to be a lot of planning and thinking ahead before any change is done to this bill. It's extremely unfortunate that most likely either way with how this turns out, people will suffer: the women who can potentially lose their insurance, and the taxpayers who will be paying more for abortions. I'm curious to see when Obama will finally give his clear opinion on abortion financing. This is an issue that will affect a lot of people, and most likely not in their best interest, so the sooner clear directions and opinions are shared, hopefully a solution will be quick to follow.
ReplyDelete