Under a new health care plan, should federal insurance subsidies be used for plans that cover elective abortions?

Yes

1 of 3

by R. Renee Bembry

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Yes. Federal insurance subsidies should be used for plans that cover elective abortions under the new health care plan.

Seeking medical assistance to rid unwanted pregnancies is not a practice that will likely end just because people who have never been faced with the trauma, or are so much stronger than those who have, disapprove of it. It would more than likely take some sort of drastic societal impetus such as foreseeable human extinction for pro-choice women to change their practices when faced with unwanted pregnancies.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "theologians, philosophers, and legislators" have been in disagreement over circumstances under which abortions might warrant administering for centuries. The encyclopedia also states that Greco-Romans used abortion as a form of birth control and that the practice was "common and socially accepted". Yet, here we are, centuries later, still in disagreement as to how much "control" women should have over their lives and their bodies!

As implicated above, girls and women have been subjecting themselves to abortions for centuries. In addition, when unable to find assistance with the process, many pregnant females resort to aborting their fetuses themselves. The only real difference between past abortions and abortions today is the issue of safety; and safety should be the primary consideration when considering inclusions for abortion practices paid for by government funds in the sought after health reform bill.

Concern over the government paying for abortions is a bit ridiculous considering the fact that government already pays for abortions. Girls and women on government assistance can and do get abortions using government assistance identification. It matters not that the state rather than the federal government pay for these abortions, taxpayer dollars still finance them.

Furthermore, the government also supplies birth control assistance and sometimes women using these birth control methods suffer birth control related problems. When these problems arise, treatments, using government finances, provide these women the aid they need.

If the government continues to monetarily involve itself in birth control issues under the newly imposed bill; and if the government continues to supply birth control, which everyone knows is not 100% effective, it would make no sense for the government to drop out of the process when prevention does not work and women become more in need of assistance.

Denial of elective abortion privileges could and most likely would lead to past behaviors in which self-inflicted and illegal abortions were sought by females desperate to rid unwanted pregnancies. In furtherance, unwanted pregnancies sometimes place women in jeopardy of being abused by males who do not want responsibility for children they father. Some of these men virtually force women they impregnate to get abortions - or else!

Another consideration to make involves treatment in cases where women take drastic measures to rid unwanted fetuses and then find themselves in need of medical assistance. Abortions that are self induced or performed improperly could be more costly to the government than paying for the abortions up front. It would make little sense to leave females to suffer consequences of poor abortion practices that could have been avoided with proper abortion care.

Forcing women to bare babies they do not want could have bigger financial impacts on society than affording abortions. Abortion adversaries who do not want to fund abortions because of their beliefs should separate out the monetary issue from the moral one. Those who are concerned about paying for abortions might need to take a different perspective.

For example, let us say woman A has an abortion in her life and that, other than seeking medical checkups to make sure she is in good health, never visits the doctor. Now let us pretend woman B never has an abortion but develops a medical condition that sends her to the doctor on a regular basis.

Monetarily speaking, fairness dictates both women should receive whatever medical treatment they need. It would be incomprehensible to deny government financed treatment to woman A simply because some disagree with her decision to have an abortion; and then to allow woman B to receive as much government financed treatment she needs even though her lifetime costs prove much greater than woman A's.

When the issue of subsidized insurance is examined, it is clear that subsidized insurance does not necessarily mean fully free insurance. Under the new health care plan, women will pay at least a portion of their insurance unless they are too poor to do so. If a woman is paying for insurance, she should be permitted to determine what services she would utilize, and abortion should be one of those services.

After all, it makes no sense for the medical community to discover ways to help patients with particular medical concerns only to avoid utilizing said findings to their utmost capacity. Furthermore, women who are too poor to afford elective abortions will only be doing what they already do - have the government pay for their treatment. That is right; the government already pays for abortions - elective abortions included.

Males against government-funded abortions should never have sex before marriage - or outside of marriage - if they cannot or do not want to provide for children they father or pay for women they impregnate to have abortions. They should not impregnate women, and then go on their merry way while the dilemma of unwanted pregnancies are left in the laps of women they sleep with.

Females who do not support abortions might want to stay off their high horses and support their right to choose, including those who marry before becoming pregnant. There are multitudes of reasons why a woman may find herself positioned to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

No matter what walk of life one travels, life happens and when it comes right down to it, elective abortions are no less offensive to unborn fetuses than non-elective abortions are. They both involve selfishness on the part of the women and men who insist upon them.

They both involve selfishness requiring removal of potential life forms from the body. They both involve selfishness women who abort must live with for the rest of their lives.

Americans should consider the facts that political "concerns" over abortion in regards to health care reform is just another way for politicians to stir the pot and rile people up in order to maintain positions that keep their elected pockets fat. Politicians need not concern themselves with women in their lives seeking abortions - for whatever reasons - because they know their "government funded insurance" - paid for "by the people" - will fully pay for fetus terminations.

They know that if public financing becomes problematic, paying a few hundred dollars to finance the procedures themselves will not be missed from the monthly household budgets they acquire, not only from public, but also from private financing.

Oh, and one more thing, electing to have abortions is not something females take with grains of salt. Emotions run rampant during these trying times. When faced with these trying decisions, young girls and women experience more than handfuls of difficulties and do not need bunches of old bald men, still outnumbering female representatives, that are supposed to be looking out for the constituents best interest, constituents that happens to include women, telling them whether or not they must carry and give birth. That is not why women vote elected officials into office!

Learn more about this author, R. Renee Bembry.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.