It took me a while to realize that the pro-life argument against health care reform is based on the concept of fungibility. They argue that since every dollar can be substituted for any other dollar, providing government subsidies for health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage is de facto funding of abortion itself. They oppose funding Planned Parenthood and health clinics in developing countries for the same reason.
The argument breaks down pretty quickly, of course. The Catholic Church receives a lot of federal money for its charitable endeavors, but most people don’t think of that funding as child molester money, although maybe they should for the sake of consistency.
I’m still not sure what these people want. Would they be satisfied if federal money could only go to insurance providers that didn’t cover abortion, even on separate plans? The trouble is, abortion can’t be easily separated from other health services for women. Like Amanda points out, doctors who perform abortions aren’t the “abortion doctors” of pro-life caricature–they’re obstetricians and gynecologists who also do pelvic exams, STI testing, and cancer screening. They even provide prenatal care and deliver babies! And what about contraceptive coverage? Something tells me that the people on this thread find the pill just as objectionable as abortion. They’re so irate about the HCR bill that some of them are threatening to stop paying taxes:
I cannot morally buy into this health care plan, and will not pay taxes where even one cent will go to fund an abortion. Morally, I simply cannot bring myself to do so.
And others are floating the idea of emigrating to pro-life countries:
I have been researching pro-life countries, and so far Costa Rico sounds nice.
I have to say, I have no problem with these people refusing to pay taxes and moving to Costa Rica. That level of utter craziness will only lead to the marginalization of their extreme views.
Right now, however, their views aren’t considered extreme. Government funding for abortion is still treated as an impossibility, even by supposedly pro-choice politicians. And few people are willing to call pro-lifers out on the fact that they want to prevent women from accessing a whole range of health care. Honestly laying out the consequences of the pro-life position is really important, because it’s the only way moderate people will realize that, baby-killing rhetoric aside, the pro-life movement’s primary motivation is disgust with female sexuality.
It’s not really about abortion. It’s about having the temerity to have a uterus.
Leave a comment