Reproductive Decisions, Revisited
(published in the August 14 issue of The New Mexico Breeze.)
From the front page article of the July 24 issue of The NM Breeze:
The U.S. federal government funds a significant proportion of Planned Parenthood's budget, much of which is used to reach and educate young girls and women … in this country regarding the abortion option. It is also used to fund abortions.
According to the 2008 Annual Report, forty percent of Planned Parenthood's budget is funded by contributions, patient fees, and commercial insurance for health related services. In addition, many fundraising events occur through the year across the country. While it's true Planned Parenthood offers abortion services and referrals, many other services are provided. Among them (listed on the website www.plannedparenthood.org) are birth control services, emergency contraception services, general health care, HIV testing services, hepatitis vaccines and HPV vaccine services, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) services, men's health services, patient education, pregnancy testing and pregnancy services, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing and treatment, and women's health services.
It seems to me the real issue here isn't about how our tax dollars are used. It's about whether those who oppose abortion, often for religious reasons, can impose their beliefs on all women, in our country which values the separation of church and state and includes that separation in the Constitution.
One of the slogans of the pro-choice movement is "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." It seems very much to the point of not dictating your beliefs to others.
It is our duty as citizens to pay for government services which are for the common good. I don't object to paying taxes for schools, even though I don't have children. I vote yes on bond issues that support public schools, as well as the police department, the fire department, and other public agencies. There was an opposition by conservatives against Social Security when it was first founded in 1935. Now Social Security has been so accepted that the concern is to save it when the funding is precarious. Tom Tomorrow, political cartoonist, put it this way: "If the Right doesn't want their tax dollars going to fund abortion because they disagree with it, does that mean the portion of my own taxes that has gone, or will go, to pay for the war in Iraq will be refunded? "
If every action taken with tax payer money required a vote of every citizen the government would never accomplish anything. At some point we need to relinquish our own sense of specialness enough to cooperate with an organized government that makes decisions and to stop ruminating over our wish to control each of these decisions.
Our government-funded public health services, which include the Veterans' Administration (VA) Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Service (IHS) are aimed at insuring that even the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, as well as those who have served our country in the military, have some access to health care. These services should be available without discrimination as to race and sex. Nevertheless, such discrimination exists. Medicaid and federal employees' health insurance covers some of men's reproductive needs such as prescriptions for Viagra. The Hyde Amendment, however, that for decades has been attached to Congressional appropriations bills, prohibits payment when women need an abortion.
Native American women seem particularly singled out. A recent article by Michelle Chen in In These Times magazine stated,
The obstacle refers to a provision slipped into the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which restricts abortions under IHS programs. Vitter's initiative tightens the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment that already applied to the Act. It is seen by some as a race-based amendment, reducing Native American women's right to abortion more than any other race of women in this country. By treaty and law, the federal government is required to fund health services for Native Americans.
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals, e.g. other children or elderly parents; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25, and 17% are teenagers. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html"
Research shows that unwanted, unplanned children have more health problems and lower birth weights. They perform at a lower level in school. They are more likely to suffer depression and anxiety at an early age, and more likely to have recurring episodes over time. They are more like to use substances to manage the negative emotions that characterize their lives. They are more likely to need unemployment funds and they are more likely to end up in our prison system. In short, unwanted children are more of a burden on society than children who are wanted and who enjoy good nurturing at home.
My own experience with Planned Parenthood was many years ago, before abortion was legalized in the U.S. It was 1962. The birth control pill was a new contraceptive method. I was about to be married, and my mother sent me to Planned Parenthood to get a prescription for the pill. Since I was about to graduate from college, and my fiance and I planned to go on to graduate school after the wedding, it wasn't the right time for me to get pregnant, even though my mother wanted grandchildren.
For all women, regardless of race or ethnicity, reproductive justice for women cannot be separated from women's economic and social well-being. There are not two kinds of women - those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty percent of those having abortions are already mothers. Such women are making decisions in order for them to be able to work to support the children they already have.
The July 24 article states that the health care reform legislation promoted by the Obama administration "provides federal mandates for abortion in nearly all health plans…."
This is not true. Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of health care service -- in the Exchange. With a Public Option in health care reform, taxpayer money would not be used to pay for abortion. The public plan is a not government-funded health plan like Medicaid or Medicare. The public health insurance plan in the Exchange would operate like any private insurance plan would.
In a recent (August 3) article in The Huffington Post, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, revealed that the Family Research Council doesn't want health care reform of any kind, and in order to misinform people in key Senate states, is now using the idea of expanding access to reproductive health care as their latest target. Raising the question of paying taxes to fund abortion in the so-called Public Option is one of the ways of perpetuating several myths to generate opposition to this much needed feature of reform. According to Richards, "The simple fact is that most women with private insurance in America already have access to full reproductive health care, and the vast majority of employment-based health plans treat abortion coverage like the rest of health care -- as a covered benefit… women shouldn't be worse off as a result of health care reform."
All this is simply a distraction. Why do so many political leaders, elected or otherwise, make such objections to availability of abortion, but do so little to support pregnant women, parents and families? I don't see them allocating tax money for these kinds of social and economic programs. America is one of only two industrialized nations in the world that does not require any paid maternity or parental leave. The United States is also one of the few industrialized nations that does not provide child or family allowances -- cash benefits given to families with children.
The July 24 article summarizes a scenario proposed by John Holdren in his book entitled Ecoscience, Population, Resources and the Environment (W.H. Freeman, 1977), in which the government dictates means of population limitation, including coercive, involuntary fertility control. The Peoples Republic of China attempted some of these measures in its one-child policy, because maintaining the rate of population growth was undesirable. It should be noted that until the present time, most countries including the United States, have adopted pro-natalist policies, i.e. economic and public health policies that encourage women to have babies. It's obvious, however, the ideas summarized in the article are intended to horrify the reader.
At the other end of the spectrum is the equally-horrifying novel by Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale (McClelland and Steward, 1985). Written shortly after the elections of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, this book is one of the most powerful portrayals of the late 20th century of a totalitarian society. It is one of the few dystopian novels to examine in detail the intersection of politics, sexuality, and reproduction. In the novel’s nightmare world of Gilead, a group of conservative religious extremists has taken power and turned the sexual revolution on its head. Gilead is a society founded on a “return to traditional values” and gender roles, and on the subjugation of women by men. Widespread access to contraception and the legalization of abortion have been reversed, in a world undone by pollution and infertility. Fertile women are considered breeders and they become sex slaves incorporated into the traditional families of rich and powerful men.
Atwood's book proposes another kind of society in which there is no democratic rule of the majority. It is written from a feminist point of view and contrasts with the editor's position, which supposes that there are government mandates to private companies regarding the performance of abortions. Before you make up your mind about health care reform, do be sure you understand the real issues and the myths. The items discussed here are but a small part of it.
From the front page article of the July 24 issue of The NM Breeze:
The U.S. federal government funds a significant proportion of Planned Parenthood's budget, much of which is used to reach and educate young girls and women … in this country regarding the abortion option. It is also used to fund abortions.
According to the 2008 Annual Report, forty percent of Planned Parenthood's budget is funded by contributions, patient fees, and commercial insurance for health related services. In addition, many fundraising events occur through the year across the country. While it's true Planned Parenthood offers abortion services and referrals, many other services are provided. Among them (listed on the website www.plannedparenthood.org) are birth control services, emergency contraception services, general health care, HIV testing services, hepatitis vaccines and HPV vaccine services, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) services, men's health services, patient education, pregnancy testing and pregnancy services, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing and treatment, and women's health services.
It seems to me the real issue here isn't about how our tax dollars are used. It's about whether those who oppose abortion, often for religious reasons, can impose their beliefs on all women, in our country which values the separation of church and state and includes that separation in the Constitution.
One of the slogans of the pro-choice movement is "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." It seems very much to the point of not dictating your beliefs to others.
It is our duty as citizens to pay for government services which are for the common good. I don't object to paying taxes for schools, even though I don't have children. I vote yes on bond issues that support public schools, as well as the police department, the fire department, and other public agencies. There was an opposition by conservatives against Social Security when it was first founded in 1935. Now Social Security has been so accepted that the concern is to save it when the funding is precarious. Tom Tomorrow, political cartoonist, put it this way: "If the Right doesn't want their tax dollars going to fund abortion because they disagree with it, does that mean the portion of my own taxes that has gone, or will go, to pay for the war in Iraq will be refunded? "
If every action taken with tax payer money required a vote of every citizen the government would never accomplish anything. At some point we need to relinquish our own sense of specialness enough to cooperate with an organized government that makes decisions and to stop ruminating over our wish to control each of these decisions.
Our government-funded public health services, which include the Veterans' Administration (VA) Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Service (IHS) are aimed at insuring that even the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, as well as those who have served our country in the military, have some access to health care. These services should be available without discrimination as to race and sex. Nevertheless, such discrimination exists. Medicaid and federal employees' health insurance covers some of men's reproductive needs such as prescriptions for Viagra. The Hyde Amendment, however, that for decades has been attached to Congressional appropriations bills, prohibits payment when women need an abortion.
Native American women seem particularly singled out. A recent article by Michelle Chen in In These Times magazine stated,
When it comes to their health, American Indian women face extraordinary barriers—from high disease risks to increased incidents of sexual violence. They now face another obstacle, rooted in the political battleground of abortion.
The obstacle refers to a provision slipped into the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which restricts abortions under IHS programs. Vitter's initiative tightens the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment that already applied to the Act. It is seen by some as a race-based amendment, reducing Native American women's right to abortion more than any other race of women in this country. By treaty and law, the federal government is required to fund health services for Native Americans.
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals, e.g. other children or elderly parents; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25, and 17% are teenagers. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html"
Research shows that unwanted, unplanned children have more health problems and lower birth weights. They perform at a lower level in school. They are more likely to suffer depression and anxiety at an early age, and more likely to have recurring episodes over time. They are more like to use substances to manage the negative emotions that characterize their lives. They are more likely to need unemployment funds and they are more likely to end up in our prison system. In short, unwanted children are more of a burden on society than children who are wanted and who enjoy good nurturing at home.
My own experience with Planned Parenthood was many years ago, before abortion was legalized in the U.S. It was 1962. The birth control pill was a new contraceptive method. I was about to be married, and my mother sent me to Planned Parenthood to get a prescription for the pill. Since I was about to graduate from college, and my fiance and I planned to go on to graduate school after the wedding, it wasn't the right time for me to get pregnant, even though my mother wanted grandchildren.
For all women, regardless of race or ethnicity, reproductive justice for women cannot be separated from women's economic and social well-being. There are not two kinds of women - those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty percent of those having abortions are already mothers. Such women are making decisions in order for them to be able to work to support the children they already have.
The July 24 article states that the health care reform legislation promoted by the Obama administration "provides federal mandates for abortion in nearly all health plans…."
This is not true. Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage -- or any other type of health care service -- in the Exchange. With a Public Option in health care reform, taxpayer money would not be used to pay for abortion. The public plan is a not government-funded health plan like Medicaid or Medicare. The public health insurance plan in the Exchange would operate like any private insurance plan would.
In a recent (August 3) article in The Huffington Post, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, revealed that the Family Research Council doesn't want health care reform of any kind, and in order to misinform people in key Senate states, is now using the idea of expanding access to reproductive health care as their latest target. Raising the question of paying taxes to fund abortion in the so-called Public Option is one of the ways of perpetuating several myths to generate opposition to this much needed feature of reform. According to Richards, "The simple fact is that most women with private insurance in America already have access to full reproductive health care, and the vast majority of employment-based health plans treat abortion coverage like the rest of health care -- as a covered benefit… women shouldn't be worse off as a result of health care reform."
All this is simply a distraction. Why do so many political leaders, elected or otherwise, make such objections to availability of abortion, but do so little to support pregnant women, parents and families? I don't see them allocating tax money for these kinds of social and economic programs. America is one of only two industrialized nations in the world that does not require any paid maternity or parental leave. The United States is also one of the few industrialized nations that does not provide child or family allowances -- cash benefits given to families with children.
The July 24 article summarizes a scenario proposed by John Holdren in his book entitled Ecoscience, Population, Resources and the Environment (W.H. Freeman, 1977), in which the government dictates means of population limitation, including coercive, involuntary fertility control. The Peoples Republic of China attempted some of these measures in its one-child policy, because maintaining the rate of population growth was undesirable. It should be noted that until the present time, most countries including the United States, have adopted pro-natalist policies, i.e. economic and public health policies that encourage women to have babies. It's obvious, however, the ideas summarized in the article are intended to horrify the reader.
At the other end of the spectrum is the equally-horrifying novel by Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale (McClelland and Steward, 1985). Written shortly after the elections of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, this book is one of the most powerful portrayals of the late 20th century of a totalitarian society. It is one of the few dystopian novels to examine in detail the intersection of politics, sexuality, and reproduction. In the novel’s nightmare world of Gilead, a group of conservative religious extremists has taken power and turned the sexual revolution on its head. Gilead is a society founded on a “return to traditional values” and gender roles, and on the subjugation of women by men. Widespread access to contraception and the legalization of abortion have been reversed, in a world undone by pollution and infertility. Fertile women are considered breeders and they become sex slaves incorporated into the traditional families of rich and powerful men.
Atwood's book proposes another kind of society in which there is no democratic rule of the majority. It is written from a feminist point of view and contrasts with the editor's position, which supposes that there are government mandates to private companies regarding the performance of abortions. Before you make up your mind about health care reform, do be sure you understand the real issues and the myths. The items discussed here are but a small part of it.
Labels: abortion, government mandates, health care reform, Indian health
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home