The Republican National Committee has thrown out a provision in their health insurance policy that covered elective abortions. This comes in the wake of the health care debate in congress with the Republicans asking for provisions that would not allow any abortions to be supported under a national healthcare bill. The removal of this abortion provision seems to have had little backlash yet, but the question is are there going to be protests for this change in policy within the Republican National Committee and if the national healthcare bill is passed without abortion provisions, will there be trouble there as well?
This move by the Republican National Committee seems to be a blatant political move since Republicans are against any abortion provision in a national health care bill, so they obviously can’t have a provision in the Republican National Committee health insurance plan lest they be called hypocrites. However, this removal of abortion provisions within the Republican National Committee and a possible similar provision within the national healthcare coverage many argue women’s rights are being violated.
The revision in the national healthcare bill would supposedly allow for coverage of abortions with women who were raped, victims of incest, or if the mother’s life was in danger. However, the argument is even this coverage isn’t enough and women deserve to be covered no matter what. This is in conflict with a policy that no taxpayer dollars can be used for abortions and this age-old argument goes even deeper and runs into the realm of responsibility.
Those opposing abortion provisions in a national healthcare bill argue that if a woman conceives a child outside of the above-mentioned causes then she is responsible for that child and should not be given the means to pay for opting out of said responsibility.
That argument over abortion is limitless and one person’s opinion is seen as law while the other’s opinion is small-minded and vice-versa. So, the question is can someone who is pro-abortion honestly argue that a pro-life taxpayer’s money should help fund a provision with which they strongly disagree.
The Republican National Committee has shown it is not worried about the backlash of removing provisions for abortion and both parties in congress refuse to all provisions for abortions in a national healthcare bill. Is abortion something that should be in a national healthcare bill? Having an abortion, in most cases, isn’t a necessary medical procedure and pregnancy isn’t an unavoidable medical condition.
How should the government approach the abortion situation in a national healthcare bill? Should they follow the Republican National Committee’s example or is healthcare on a national level more complex? What of laws not allowing taxpayer money to go toward abortions? Are they applicable in this case or is it unfair to women to be denied abortion benefits in national healthcare bill or the Republican National Committee? On the other hand is it right for a pro-life taxpayer to contribute to benefits for something they feel is wrong?
Many in Detroit Michigan are concerned about health insurance moving forward. This particular area of the country has struggled compared to growing towns like Raleigh, NC and Greenville, SC. It will be interested to see how the state government of Michigan looks to help this struggling city.