Is Abortion a “Woman’s Health Issue?”

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:10 am by Faithful Democrats

Is Abortion a “Woman’s Health Issue?” 2013-05-09T06:10:00-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Are we ever going to get beyond this hypocrisy?

You have to help me here. I
am wallowing in a certain miasma of contradiction and ignorance – my
own, of course, inasmuch as I shall never be faced with the choice of
whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

A
dear, dear friend who is on the cutting edge of social activism in my
home state sent an email soliciting my support with something called
"An Act to Provide Equity in Funding for Women's Health."

It seems that women on low-income health care plans are being shortchanged on access to the full range of coverage. If pregnant, prenatal care and delivery are offered "with no questions asked." But
if a woman decides that ending her pregnancy is her best choice,
abortion will not be provided except in cases of rape, incest or where
the safety of the mother is at stake.

Apparently, seventeen other states have ended what is referred to in the email as a discriminatory policy. My dear friend sees this as a social and economic justice issue.

Four descriptive words and phrases stand out – equity, social justice, economic justice and choice.

As
for equity, it seems illogical to me to plead equity unless there is
discrimination – that others are unfairly receiving abortion coverage. If
that is so (and I have no idea one way or another), this has to be
under private plans that are costing the insured or her employer
hundreds of dollars a month. In contrast,
government plans are supported with taxpayer funds and are necessarily
limited in what they can offer, as they are funded by the very people
who have or offer the commercial health care plans.

The equity argument, it seems to me, has limited appeal, as it is comparing apples to oranges. Private
health plans run the gamut from Volkswagens to Cadillacs, and the costs
are commensurate, extending the equity argument to all those who do not
have Cadillac plans.

The social justice argument is equally puzzling. Social injustice occurs when a class of people is prohibited from access to certain benefits or services. Abortion services are available to everyone; no social group is denied abortion services. The cost of those services does not cut to the issue of social justice.

The economic justice argument is even more puzzling. To
suggest that everyone ought to have equal access to all benefits and
services regardless of ability to pay is not an economic justice
argument but a form-of-government argument that might play better in Sweden than it would in America. Once
we start down that slippery slope, there are hundreds of benefits and
services that are beyond the financial reach of 95% of Americans.

The Democratic Party doesn't seem to get it sometimes. It has been marginalized by the Christian Right on matters of faith. Abortion has played a key role in painting the Democratic Party into the "evil and faithless" corner. Yet, here we go again advocating for the extremes.

What happened to the mantra, "Abortion ought to be safe, legal and rare"? Government does not make abortion rare by expanding funding to cover abortions. It makes them rare by, among other things, refusing to fund them.

As
for a woman's right to choose, it seems to me that the right to choose,
having been extended to the act of conception, ought to carry with it
some degree of restraint when it comes to the likely impact of that
choice. The rule of cause and effect would
insist that choices made require of us certain obligations and
responsibilities, regardless of what kind of health care plan you have. The cost of an abortion offers such a restraint on choice.

It is one thing to view the act of sex as an unencumbered choice. It is quite another to view as a health issue the likely outcome of that choice, except in extreme circumstances.

I recall a bill that was before our legislature that made it a crime to kill a fetus in an assault against a pregnant woman. Those on the right focused on the fetus. Those on the left focused on the woman. As
a legislator, I wondered why we all didn't focus on the larger social
context – the health not only of the woman and fetus but of the
community of citizens and the balance of nature.

A
pro-life position that protects a fertilized egg in a Petri dish while
advocating for the bombing of pregnant women in far-off places like Iraq is bogus.

On the other hand, a pro-choice position that treats a fully-formed, about-to-become citizen of the United States as a women's health issue in other than extreme circumstances is morally and ethically repugnant, however legal it may be.

Are we never going to get beyond this hypocrisy?

Stan Moody, author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Featured Writers

Previous Post

April 18, 2007

It's NOT the guns!

Next Post

April 20, 2007 Jesus, Howard Dean, and the Easter Bunny

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who were Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Cain and Abel Esau and Jacob Simeon and Levi Joseph and Benjamin