The Abortion Question Needs an Answer!
The health care debate is going around in circles over the abortion question. Will the health care bill allow federal dollars to be used toward abortion coverage or not? Well, from what the media is reporting–the majority of the House and President Obama say no federal money for abortions.
But the specification in the bill is the matter of debate–there are options for lower income families of providing tax credits that could be used to attain abortion coverage. Wouldn’t that mean government money could be spent towards reproductive services?
According to the AP article Abortion divides House Dems in Health Care Debate, there are two dozen anti-abortion democrats who want to make sure that the bill clearly prohibits federal funding of abortions.
Some believe the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used towards abortions “except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered,” would answer the abortion question. Others report that there are discrepancies with the amendment and that it only applies to Medicaid.
On the Life News website, this article gives both sides of the debate over the Hyde Amendment. According to National Right to Life federal legislative director Douglas Johnson and AP, the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the new health care bill.
However, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the Hyde Amendment directly prohibits federal funding of abortions. The Life News website believes that Gibbs mislead reporters.
In my opinion, a new amendment should be established where there is no confusion in the language of the amendment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not specify if there will be an amendment on abortion, and said the current focus is on “our policy on this legislation.”
Yes, I agree that the health care bill overall and the public option should be the priority, but the issue of abortion cannot be ignored. There is too much controversy in the media not to answer the question: Will women receive abortion coverage or not?
Does Republican Senator Snowe’s Vote Count?
Senator of Maine Olympia Snowe has recently received frantic press attention because she is the only Republican in the house that voted for Obama’s health care reform bill. According to Reuters, the vote on Tuesday in the Senate Finance Committee was 14-9 in favor of Obama’s plan.
Snowe is a moderate Republican, who has been known to go against the party majority. She also voted for Obama’s economic stimulus bill. This reputation has led some Republicans to question her allegiance to the party, but her views reflect more on local politics and what will benefit the residents of Maine, where there are not many large companies that provide health insurance to employees.
The New York Times gives a variety of opinions on the importance of Snowe’s vote. Some say that Democrats would be able to pass the bill without Republican support and that the vote right now is not final because health reform will be adjusted in the future. Senator and chairmen of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, was not too concerned in getting Snowe’s vote, but more concerned about “getting it done right.”
Snowe has been a frequent blog topic across all political views in the blogosphere.
But what are her views on abortion?
Reuters reported that Snowe is disliked by conservative Republicans for her support of legalizing abortion. Recently The New York Times reported that Snowe rejected abortion restrictions, but in the Baucus Bill there will be no use of federal money towards reproductive services. Private insurance companies that choose to cover abortion can continue to do so.
“We want to preserve the status quo on abortion,” said Snowe. So Snowe supports women’s legal right to abortion, but she also does not support a government plan that provides abortion coverage. What about women who cannot afford private insurance for reproductive services?
There is a fear among women’s pro-choice advocates that private insurance companies will drop abortion coverage altogether to save costs in the competitive market that will have a less expensive government plan.
Women’s Rights in Afghanistan
The LA Times’ audio slide show Afghanistan’s Women Yearn for More is well a constructed piece on the increase of social freedoms for Afghani women, who are more able to attain education, laugh in public, and wear less traditional coverings like burkas. Reporter and photographer Carolyn Cole narrates the slide show, which features numerous portraits of Afghanis. The photographs are mostly candid shots of citizens in daily life. This allows the viewer to feel like they are getting a natural sense of life as an Afghani woman.
Cole starts the slide show with a shot of two modern Afghani women crossing the street. There is natural sound in the background of the narration including city street noise in Kabul like cars zooming and the chiming bells of a bicycle. This furthers the audience’s experience of getting a vibe of the real Afghanistan through sight and sound.
Under each photograph there are captions that coincide with the narration, but at times the captions give more specific information like quotes and ages. In my opinion, this is distracting because if the viewer looks at the caption below the photograph than they will miss the narration and therefore have to pause the slide show. Cole’s narration flows well and is not worth missing. A text piece including the specific information in the captions would have been more appropriate.
The parts that I found the most interesting were when the narration synchronized flawlessly with the subject of the photograph. For instance, there is one shot of a man looking displeased in the direction of his wife, when the narration says some men are not happy with the change in freedoms for women and even threaten their wives’ lives.
Afghanistan has a male dominated society, where if a man believes that his wife has not followed expectations or been adulterous than extreme repercussions take place. In the worst case, women can be killed or burned with acid, in an “honor killing.” Also, women can feel so guilt ridden that they give themselves self-afflicted wounds or even burn themselves. Cole shows gruesome shots of women at the National Burn Unit. Although these shots are hard for the viewer to see, I understand the impact that Cole wanted to bring the audience. As a viewer, I thought, “these women really burned themselves?”
The photos that were the most intriguing to me were women eating ice cream while wearing a burka, a woman getting married, and the many shots of children. What also struck me was Afghanistan having one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the world and 90% of burn victims not surviving. This is related to the lack of sufficient medical care in Afghanistan. Access to health care for Afghani women is probably more difficult to attain. Overall, Cole’s angle on the piece is ‘yes the women of Afghanistan have experienced some social freedom, but they still experience oppression and inferiority to men.’ The piece tactfully ends with an Afghani woman saying she hopes for freedom.
(This is a multimedia class assignment)
No Federal Dollars for Abortion Coverage
The New York Times has reported that a considerable amount of moderate Democrats and Republicans are in favor of restricting the use of federal money to pay for abortions. Although President Obama initially gave the impression that he was a supporter of female health rights, but the “abortion fight” has strongly divided up the House, causing him to take the side of restricting the use of subsidies for abortion. Currently, Obama has not clearly addressed his stance on these new restrictive proposals. It seems he is waiting for a middle ground that does not exist.
According to New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, the abortion opponents are “requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.” So both insurers and consumers would have to pay from private funds to receive abortion services. This could have the consequence of private insurers not wanting to provide abortion to cut costs, resulting in women losing existing abortion coverage.
In the October newsletter from Planned Parenthood, this New York Times article was mentioned. Pro-choice supporters are worried that women are going have to give up the abortion coverage that they already have from private insurance plans.
The president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is profiled and interviewed on her views on the health care debate. According to Richards, Planned Parenthood’s goals are to “just to make sure that reproductive healthcare is part of the healthcare package – and the second is that women’s healthcare providers are part of whatever exchange is developed.” Richards wants the government insurance plan to be supported by a diverse variety of health care providers and clinics, so that getting contraception is not an issue.
In modern society, women should not have to “fight” to receive the coverage they need, but then again who is fighting in the House and Senate right now? The majority of the House and Senate are made up of males. Female health coverage is not just a heavily debated issue, but an issue to be controlled.
If you are interested in supporting women’s rights to reproductive health please attend the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice Lobby Day 2009 on Oct. 6 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the State House in Boston.
Medi-Gal 