While there is no federal funding for abortion, the Trump administration has backed a rule that would forbid federal funding from going to clinics that provide or refer abortion services. In many cases, women rely on such clinics for medical services other than abortion, so if federal funding is cut, then these women might have to do without such things as pre-natal care and gynecological exams. As such, the rule presents a practical and moral quandary. To be specific, clinics that need federal funding will have to chose between reducing (or eliminating) services they cannot fund or eliminating abortion services and referrals.
On the one hand, opponents of abortion can make the argument that the defenders of abortion are in the wrong here: if the clinics would simply stop offering abortions and referrals, then they could receive the federal money they need to offer non-abortion services to women. As the anti-abortion folks see it, abortion is wrong and thus this option would be the morally best choice. If the abortion defenders refuse, the anti-abortion folks can say “look what you made us do” when the federal government refuses to provide funds to these clinics. On this view, the abortion defenders would bear the moral blame for the harm done to women by the denial of funding. This is because they are willing to allow this harm so that the clinics can still offer abortion services and referrals.
On the other hand, the defenders of abortion can make the argument that the anti-abortion folks are in the wrong. The anti-abortion folks are effectively holding the well-being of women (and babies) who need the other services hostage to their demand that the clinics not offer abortion services or referrals. As such, any harm done to the women (and babies) would fall upon the anti-abortion folks who insist that it is better that the women (and babies) suffer than that the clinics provide abortion services or referrals.
In sum, the anti-abortion folks would presumably say “the blame lies on the abortion defenders; if they simply stopped offering abortion services and referrals, the clinics could have the funding.” In contrast, the abortion defenders would presumably say “any blame lies on the anti-abortion folks; federal funding already cannot be used for abortion and they are just hurting women by pushing this rule.” On the face of it, the abortion defenders seem to have the better moral position on this issue: the anti-abortion folks already have a ban on federal funding for abortion, this expanded rule is morally greedy and hurts women whether the clinic choses to accept funds or elects to continue to provide abortion services and referrals. Interestingly, this could very well be a feature of the rule rather than a bug.
From the standpoint of an anti-abortion person who is a fiscal conservative, this rule creates a win-win situation. If a clinic accepts federal money, it would no longer be able to offer abortion services or referrals. If a clinic declines the money, this reduces the federal money being spent (assuming, however unlikely, that it is not simply spent elsewhere).
Anti-abortion folks who do not care about women or are hostile to them would also be quite pleased by this rule. If a clinic accepts money, then women who need or want abortions will have a harder time getting them, thus they will be harmed. If the clinic rejects the money, then it will have less funding and will be less able to provide services, thus harming women in various ways, including unwanted pregnancies that could end in abortions.
While one would like to think that harming women (and babies) would be an unintended consequence of this rule, it seems reasonable to think that this is an intended consequence. That is, the rule is not really about the ethics of abortion (since federal funding cannot go to that anyway) but about cutting ever deeper into federal support for the health of women and babies.
“In many cases, women rely on such clinics for medical services other than abortion, so if federal funding is cut, then these women might have to do without such things as pre-natal care and gynecological exams.”
I’m confused here. Did I miss something? What was that big issue in the 2008 presidential campaign – it was so long ago, it’s hard to remember. Wasn’t there some talk about the inadequacy of our health insurance business that took up all the time and effort of Congress and every news cycle for almost eight years? Something about mandates and platinum and “it’s a tax but it’s not a tax” and millions of Americans will save a bunch of money and 18 million uninsured will finally have the healthcare they desperately need as a result of a bunch of politicians making sausage?
I did hear something about a bunch of “big lies” like saving money and keeping your doctor and premiums going down – but the prize never changed … all of us would finally have comprehensive, government vetted, quality healthcare that covers our most basic needs whether we like it or not.
Please tell me how the federal funding of clinics has anything to do with this. Are women required to attend federally funded clinics for OB GYN, pre-natal and other maternity care? Do they have no other choice? Are there not doctors who work out of offices that don’t require federal funding? If not, then what does this mean?
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that preventive health services in general, and women’s preventive health services in particular, are critical to individual and community health, and that cost is often a barrier to accessing needed preventive care. In addition to the Essential Health Benefits requirement to cover maternity care and preventive services, the ACA adds § 2713(a)(4) to the Public Health Service Act (“the Women’s Health Amendment”) to require coverage of women’s health preventive services, including prenatal care, without cost sharing.”
Is this just another lie perpetrated by Obamacare? Or is this just yet another stretch of the truth in service of falsely appealing to our emotions so that we accept yet another government expenditure, or hate Trump, or both?
if federal funding is cut, then these women might have to do without such things as pre-natal care and gynecological exams.
Or if federal funding is cut to abortion providers, there just might be more funding available for pre-natal care, etc. for all such women, including those who have moral objections to being treated by people that they themselves consider murderers. Who is providing care for them? Why must they be forced to enter what many of them consider a house of murder just because they are poor and (presumably) can’t afford a private practice? This is typical of the hair-on-fire, hand waving hyperventilating that we constantly get from the Left. And (unthinkingly?) Mike falls right in line. Even in the context of federal funding, if funding for abortion providers is cut that doesn’t mean that the resources go away. Some such clinics will have to make a choice as to which is more important to them, providing abortions or pre-natal, etc. care. Some will continue with abortions. Others will drop that part and just do pre-natal. But even those who go on to just provide abortions, the funding will, and thus the demand, will still be there for pre-natal and someone will provide that. I thought Lefty’s were big Demand-Side economics fans. Interesting how that suddenly gets forgotten.
Make no mistake, the tying together of abortion providers with pre-natal, etc. care is by design to create just this very argument. And boilerplate for the standard, oh-how-helpless-we-are gator-arms arguments from those who look to government to solve the world’s problems. “Liberals” who can’t manage change.
“…just because they are poor and (presumably) can’t afford a private practice?”
Theoretically, and so we have all been told, this is not an issue anymore. Obamacare guarantees (and requires) healthcare for all – and makes sure that it is paid for by our tax dollars. The ACA provides OB-GYN and pre-natal care for everyone – and if you can’t afford the premium you can get insurance for free.
“Some women will lose access” is the exact same argument used for every single form of regulation, moderation, funding reduction or elimination – and it is always framed the same way – that there is some kind of “war on women”.
I’m not going to get into the issue of abortion – I’ve already stated my opinion and I recognize and understand that others have more extreme positions than I do on both sides. My issue is the complete dishonesty of this argument – after having spent eight long years having Obamacare forced upon me with the promise that this issue would no longer exist.
I still would like to see documentation or even evidence that these government-funded clinics are the only option for some women, otherwise they lose the care they need. I will admit that I am not an expert on the ACA, and I will also admit that huge sweeping plans like the ACA have loopholes and errors and that some people fall through the cracks – but until I see the specific examples, I will just disregard this whole argument as another Big Lie.