A matter of principle rather than passion

A matter of principle rather than passion
By Andrew Hedlund
The State Press
As published in the November 16 edition of The State Press or read it online at www.statepress.com/opinions.

Amidst the passionate rhetoric and flurry of insults that is known as the health care debate, one word rings louder than all the others. Both sides have used the word “choice” incessantly.

Ironically, the 11th hour political move executed to get health insurance reform through the House of Representatives took away the right to choose from millions of women. Much to the chagrin of pro-choice Democrats, the Stupak amendment was added early in the night before the House voted on the final version of the bill. At the end of the vote, the bill was passed, but this feat came at a price.

Brought to the House floor by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., this amendment bans abortions from being covered by the government run insurance plan or by plans bought with federal subsidies. This includes any private health insurance plans bought through the new insurance exchange with government subsidies.

This amendment provides several exceptions. They include when a woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy has been a result of rape or incest.

This sets the standards for a choice that is very personal to women, which is unfair to them. Women should be able to dictate the grounds of this choice.

As a matter of principle, this amendment should be removed from the bill on two grounds: that all women deserve a choice, and abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure.

Women who might not be able to afford an abortion except for under the forbidden circumstances are cheated. They have been robbed of their right to choose.

This amendment oversteps the bounds of personal privacy; the government now imposes sanctions so strict on a safe medical procedure that many women may have trouble affording it.

This amendment also dictates what type of medical operations a person can and cannot receive. There would be a backlash from the American public if the government put sanctions on what types of heart surgery were available and how a patient could pay for it. Abortion, albeit its controversial nature, is still a safe and legal procedure that every woman should have access to. Democrats have abandoned their principles.

While I highly support bipartisanship, there are times when elected officials must stand their ground; their constituents sent them to Washington for a reason.

This is one of those times. Every woman deserves a choice; placing stringent limits on a medical procedure is nonsensical. Using government subsidies to pay for an abortion does not necessarily mean supporting the procedure. Rather, it means recognizing a woman’s right to choose, as the Supreme Court did in 1973.

Acknowledging this might make some Americans uneasy, but it is the right thing to do. Not on the grounds of liberal theology, but on the grounds of common sense. Every woman deserves a say in a decision that will change her life.

Reach Andrew at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu.