“No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act . . . may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."
Even though I'm pro-choice, I do not think that federal funding should be used to pay for abortions because of the controversial nature of abortions. I think it's a ridiculous that the entire success or failure of healthcare reform could ride on the moral issue of abortion. And anyways doesn't more human life perish today due to inadequate health care than abortions?
I say let's just add the amendment and move on with it. Although I did find the following statement interesting:
"The state may not constitutionally create obstacles to abortion, but it has no obligation to remove obstacles, such as poverty, that are not of its own making."
I wouldn't really describe poverty as an obstacle for an abortion, but rather oftentimes the very reason why women seek abortions in the first place. If we could all raise our children in safe, fulfilled environments why wouldn't we? So now only rich mothers-to-be with enough money to pay out of pocket for abortions will be allowed to exercise their right to "choose"? That really doesn't seem like a moral solution either.
In my opinion if there are truly sinful actions, then one sin must be bringing an unwanted baby into this world without the ability or intention of taking responsibility for that child's well being in some capacity.
No comments:
Post a Comment