Saturday, November 7, 2009


Health-care reform is hot hot hot right now. Lots swirling about whether or not people's taxes will be used to fund abortion. This makes me spit. Abortion is a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. There would be much gnashing of teeth if an amendment were proposed banning the use of public dollars for vasectomy. Or angioplasty. I could perhaps see putting restrictions on purely elective abortion coverage - in the same way non-cancerous mole removal are generally not covered by public (and some private) insurance. But to not cover a medically-necessary procedure, be it abortion or chemotherapy, is unconscionable.

Why is it the same people who scream and stamp their feet about a (gasp) government take-over of health care are so eager to see the government involved in women's health care? Why are these things not left to women and their doctors? Not to mention why those who decry government involvement in anything want the government to tell a whole population that they can't get married (oh wait different post).

Look at it this way: millions of Americans find abortion morally reprehensible, and they believe their tax dollars should not go to pay for something they find morally reprehensible. I find pre-emptive war morally reprehensible, as do millions of others. Why should my tax money be used to pay for that? I'd love to know that my taxes didn't go to the war. But this is not how the system works, folks.

Abortion is legal. It needs to be kept legal. And women who are on public health care should not be made pawns in these political games. Legal, medical procedures that a doctor deems necessary should be covered by insurance. Period.

1 comment: