Sunday, December 20, 2009

But Is It Art?

The Senate health care reform bill has overcome another hurdle with Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) stating yesterday that he would support the bill if it retained language to prevent taxpayer funds from going to insurance coverage that would pay for abortion. This move has been attacked from both sides of the abortion debate. Pro-choice advocates say Nelson's language would prevent women from getting abortion coverage, while pro-life advocates say the language doesn't go far enough. But I think we're missing an important distinction here.

At its core, abortion is a medical procedure that kills a human life. How exactly is that health care?

Granted, there are times when an abortion may save the life of the mother. Having said that, those procedures are rare, meaning the bulk of the abortions being performed are elective. You could make a case that an abortion could make the quality of the mother's life better, but that's not the same as a life-saving procedure.

Of course, some Leftists will say that I'm just anti-woman because of my position on this issue, but I would also add there are a lot of things insurance covers for men, such as ED drugs, that I don't think should be covered by insurance because of the same argument I made above. They don't save lives, only make the quality of life better for some. When we play the game of "whose life is worth more", we all lose. And I think that's where Senator Nelson's coming from with his opposition to abortion being covered under the health care reform bill.

Of course, that's not going to make both sides of the abortion debate stop to consider the absurdity of considering abortion to be a health care issue.

No comments: