The healthcare debate is drawing out a lot of extreme behavior and language, but most of it can be discarded as alarmist partisanship – Harry Reid claiming opposition to the bill akin to support for slavery, for example. However, if you strip away the politics, there are still serious moral, ethical, and philosophical concerns that demand attention. Unfortunately, some of our leaders seem to lack the capacity to understand this.
Barbara Boxer just made this claim about the abortion debate central to the bill’s current progress:
“Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.”
At a very, very basic level, Boxer stupidly misses the underlying functionality of abortion and Viagra – the former prevents life while the latter enables it, and this puts the two on very separate fields. Or, if you want to remove life from the conversation – which I would bet she does – then she is equating the two, which would mean that she sees abortion as a form of sexual enhancement. And that…well, I don’t think any person would be able to make a convincing argument about that.
But the larger concern with abortion as a healthcare reform issue is that the current legislation would require citizens with deep moral opposition to pay for others to have the procedure. Attempts to strike abortion coverage from mandated insurance have no bearing on the availability or safety of the procedure. In fact, mandatory abortion coverage is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promise to reduce the number of abortions. No surprise there, unfortunately.
Anyhow, the other side is that there has not been, as far as I know, any concentrated moral claim against the use of Viagra. The use of the medicine does not run against the firmly held beliefs of any religious institution or political organization. If the healthcare bill was attempting to block access to period-related medicine, for example, Boxer would have a point.
But as it stands, she is just a loud moron making a ludicrous claim about a very important issue.
Jack – The real issue here – and with abortion – is, as Boxer states, that a single, female-centric healthcare issue is being singled out for purely political reasons. Abortion is much more than just a “life” issue – it’s also a personal freedoms issue, and ethical issue that encompasses many complicated questions about control over one’s own body/life and functions, a women’s rights issue (given the numerous cultural and historical realities associated with abortion policy in this country), and so on.
Furthermore, the healthcare reform debate in this country must not devolve into a “moral”
prioritization and preference one. I, for instance, oppose the practices – enjoyed by many -of smoking, over drinking, and over-eating – all of which claim millions of more lives than abotion ever will and cost this country billions in healthcare costs annually. If my “morality” prevailed, my tax dollars wouldn’t pay for treatments associated with these “conditions” – but, as we all know, they are used for those purposes daily – if not hourly. As long as treatments for these conditions are legal – as abortions are – then individual preference and morality must not play a role in creating laws that cover their insurance coverage.
Boxer’s larger point is that we shouldn’t use individual moral judegments around individual (legal) medical procedures when regulating and passing new healthcare reforms. Period. Her claims are far from “stupid” or “ludicrous” – in fact, they resonate with millions of Americans (and, apparently, a majority of US Senators) who support pro-choice policies and an objective (non “moral”) approach to reform and show a great understanding and sensitivity to the wide range of complex issues that surround abortion policy.
We shouldn’t use moral judgments in passing legislation? Seriously? The entire country was founded based on morality. There is no such thing as extra-moral objectivity.
The real issue is that the government is trying to force people who are morally opposed to abortion – I am one of them – to spend tax money so others can practice something I find morally objectionable. I am happy to have a very thorough debate about why this is a moral issue, if need be.
You mention a woman’s rights, personal freedom, etc. None of those things are in jeopardy. This legislation does not in any way, shape, or form affect the legality or safety of abortions – only the funding of them.
You can disregard moral arguments, but you have no right to tell me (and the majority of the rest of the United States) that abortion is not a moral issue. And you realize that there wouldn’t really be much of a fight to get the rest of this silly bill passed if you just didn’t give more money to abortions, right?
Oh – and can you explain the viagra connection again? Because I still don’t see how it can be linked to abortion. Thanks.