OpEdNews - Article: Why Funding for Abortions is Essential to the Nation's Health

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) 14 August 2009 -- Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has taken the stand that federal taxpayer-funding for abortions is immoral. His statement on this matter has been widely posted, including at "Texas Straight Talk" 29 July 2009. A debate ensued between Shane Matthews, a Ron Paul supporter, and me, where I contended that staking out a position that would severely limit a woman's right to choose is an absurd position for a prominent libertarian--who is an ob/gyn
physician, to boot!--to defend. The situation is laden with irony, moreover, because the weight of the evidence, in my estimation, not only demonstrates that Ron Paul's position is indefensible but that, on the contrary, denying abortion funding in a tax-payer funded health care plan would be profoundly immoral.

Ron Paul: The immorality of taxpayer funded abortion
"Texas Straight Talk" 27 July 2009

Health care continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government health care plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without health care in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and health care. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to health care, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national health care overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.
_______________________________________

The following are some comments posted in the Standard, including especially those of Shane Matthews, who supports the position of Ron Paul, and Jim Fetzer, who does not:

Comments

The question at stake is not the beginning of life-there is no good reason to doubt that human life begins at conception-but the stage at which the developing entity qualifies as a "person", which entails attaining a legal/moral status appropriate to have its rights respected. There is no doubt that infants and children, not to mention seniors and adults, qualify as "persons" in the appropriate sense. They are entitled to certain rights and others have the obligation to respect those rights and not interfere with their exercise. But the character of those rights tends to vary with the age, background and experience of different persons. Not all persons are entitled to the same rights.

Even though, in most states, persons are entitled to serve in the military, enter contracts for pay, drive automobiles on highways and become engaged and marry, for example, when they are of an appropriate age, background and experience, there are few who would seriously contend that children, for example, have the same rights as young adults. Even if those who attain the age of 18 acquire the right to drive automobiles on highways-with appropriate driver's training-there are few who would contend that children who are 5 or 6 years old ought to enjoy that privilege. Societies are pervasive with graduated rights, which apply to persons at different stages in their lives under suitable conditions. And this raises the question of the existence of a "right to life".

The idea that ova fertilized by sperm are entitled to some "right to life" has no basis in law or human experience. The most widely adopted standard is that newborn offspring have that right, which is reflected by virtually universal revulsion at infanticide. But a zygote, an embryo, or even a fetus (during the first two trimesters)-in the opinion of the Supreme Court-does not enjoy that right. And, viewed from the perspective of the theory of graduated rights, this makes a great deal of sense. When the entity cannot even survive apart from its intrauterine environment, there is no appropriate basis for differentiating the fetus from the mother as a separate "person". The fetus at this stage appears to be a special kind of property of a woman where her rights far transcend those of the developing entity, whose continuing existence is dependent upon hers.

Indeed, the theory that ensoulment should be used to justify the claim that a zygote qualifies as a "person" with the right to life, if adopted as a matter of public policy, would inject the government into the most intimate aspects of our lives. To protect the rights of "persons", we would need the services of a vast enforcement apparatus, which would subject women to monthly pregnancy tests, since otherwise we would be unable to even identify the complete class of persons whose rights need to be upheld. The occurrence of miscarriages would become important to make sure that murders were not being conducted and concealed under the guise of a natural process. It might even become important to monitor the disposition of sperm to uphold that legal standard. Cameras and wiretaps might be required to track the use made of ejaculate from masturbation.

Attacks upon the court's decision are virtually universally not well-founded. The core of morality is treating other persons as ends and never merely as means. Expressed most simply, morality requires treating other persons with respect. Persons are treated as ends when we respect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Persons are treated merely as means when we do not respect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consider murder, robbery, kidnapping, and rape. The imperative not to treat others merely as means, however, does not entail that we never treat one another as means-as with employers and employees, doctors and patients, students and teachers-so long as that occurs within the context of relationships of mutual respect. When conflicts arise between the interests of the mother and the interests of the fetus, there should be no serious doubt whose interests should prevail-even during third trimesters in matters of life and health.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9