THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 18, 1994 TAG: 9407160025
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Long : 111 lines
The sleeper issue of the health-care debate has finally exploded into the headlines, with the American Roman Catholic bishops announcing they will actively oppose any health-care plan that pays for abortions. Liberal Capitol Hill Democrats countered by saying they would oppose any bill that didn't provide for abortions.
The primary issue, of course, is whether any kind of massive health-care overhaul such as the Clinton administration contemplates is needed at all. The answer to that question is no. But the proponents of taxpayer-funding of abortion see health reform as a way of short-circuiting state and local governments that have made clear their opposition to any such funding.
Proponents of including abortion funding in the health- care bill argue that it must included for ``universal'' coverage to be meaningful. They also argue that citizens cannot pick and choose those programs for which they wish to pay and those for which they do not wish to pay.
But funding abortion is not like funding the food-stamp program or the mohair subsidy. One can have principled objections to both, but neither arouses the kind of heated passion that surrounds the abortion issue.
And Americans have been picking and choosing on the funding of abortion for some time now. Thirty-seven states (including Virginia) have varying restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, such as if the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. Congress has for a decade and a half passed differing versions of the Hyde amendment, which disallows most federal funding for abortion.
While polls show most Americans favor allowing access to abortion, far fewer favor taxpayer funding. A USA Today/CNN poll published June 30 showed that 51 percent of respondents did not favor making abortion a part of the benefits package available under any health insurance overhaul.
Pro-choice forces in Congress clearly see health-care reform as a stealth way of forcing taxpayer-funded abortions on areas of the country, such as Virginia, that have clearly set forth their opposition to such funding. The prospect of such a usurpation of the rights of local government is just one more reason to kill the proposed Clinton-style health reform altogether.
The sleeper issue of the health-care debate has finally exploded into the headlines, with the American Roman Catholic bishops announcing they will actively oppose any health-care plan that pays for abortions. Liberal Capitol Hill Democrats countered by saying they would oppose any bill that didn't provide for abortions.
The primary issue, of course, is whether any kind of massive health-care overhaul such as the Clinton administration contemplates is needed at all. The answer to that question is no. But the proponents of taxpayer-funding of abortion see health reform as a way of short-circuiting state and local governments that have made clear their opposition to any such funding.
Proponents of including abortion funding in the health-care bill argue that it must be included for ``universal'' coverage to be meaningful. They also argue that citizens cannot pick and choose those programs for which they wish to pay and those for which they do not wish to pay.
But funding abortion is not like funding the food-stamp program or the mohair subsidy. One can have principled objections to both, but neither arouses the kind of heated passion that surrounds the abortion issue.
And Americans have been picking and choosing on the funding of abortion for some time now. Thirty-seven states (including Virginia) have varying restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, such as if the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. Congress has for a decade and a half passed differing versions of the Hyde amendment, which disallows most federal funding for abortion.
While polls show most Americans favor allowing access to abortion, far fewer favor taxpayer funding. A USA Today/CNN poll published June 30 showed that 51 percent of respondents did not favor making abortion a part of the benefits package available under any health-insurance overhaul.
Pro-choice forces in Congress clearly see health-care reform as a stealth way of forcing taxpayer-funded abortions on areas of the country, such as Virginia, that have clearly set forth their opposition to such funding. The prospect of such a usurpation of the rights of local government is just one more reason to kill the proposed Clinton-style health reform altogether.
The sleeper issue of the health-care debate has finally exploded into the headlines, with the American Roman Catholic bishops announcing they will actively oppose any health-care plan that pays for abortions. Liberal Capitol Hill Democrats countered by saying they would oppose any bill that didn't provide for abortions.
The primary issue, of course, is whether any kind of massive health-care overhaul such as the Clinton administration contemplates is needed at all. The answer to that question is no. But the proponents of taxpayer-funding of abortion see health reform as a way of short-circuiting state and local governments that have made clear their opposition to any such funding.
Proponents of including abortion funding in the health-care bill argue that it must be included for ``universal'' coverage to be meaningful. They also argue that citizens cannot pick and choose those programs for which they wish to pay and those for which they do not wish to pay.
But funding abortion is not like funding the food-stamp program or the mohair subsidy. One can have principled objections to both, but neither arouses the kind of heated passion that surrounds the abortion issue.
And Americans have been picking and choosing on the funding of abortion for some time now. Thirty-seven states (including Virginia) have varying restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, such as paying for abortions only if the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. Congress has for a decade and a half passed differing versions of the Hyde amendment, which disallows most federal funding for abortion.
While polls show most Americans favor allowing access to abortion, far fewer favor taxpayer funding. A USA Today/CNN poll published June 30 showed that 51 percent of respondents did not favor making abortion a part of the benefits package available under any health-insurance overhaul.
Pro-choice forces in Congress clearly see health-care reform as a stealth way of forcing taxpayer-funded abortions on areas of the country, such as Virginia, that have clearly set forth their opposition to such funding. The prospect of such a usurpation of the rights of local government is just one more reason to kill the proposed Clinton-style health reform altogether. by CNB