Subsidies for abortion? Congressman vs. constituent.

Thank you for informing me of your opposition to the inclusion of abortion in the president's health-care reform proposal. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views.

Although I understand your opinions, I do not agree with you on this question. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects the right of a woman to have an abortion, if she chooses to do so. In cases where a woman has chosen to exercise her constitutional right to have an abortion, including abortion coverage in the health reform plan will help to keep it safe.

At this time it is unclear whether a provision which allows federal funds to be used for abortions will be included in the final version of the health-care reform package to be considered by Congress. Currently, most American women have private health insurance policies. Eighty percent of these policies provide coverage for abortions. Under any comprehensive health-care reform, private health insurance policies would be drawn under the ambit of an overall federal program. They would be regulated by the federal government, and some--principally those for the unemployed and poor--would be subsidized by the federal government. But no distinction would be made in regulating the policies. If abortion coverage were prohibited, the 80 percent of policies which now include such coverage would have to be changed. I do not believe it appropriate for the federal government to dictate such a prohibition into private insurance policies.

While not covering abortion in the health-care reform plan would make abortion less accessible for many women, history has shown us that women will continue to have abortions, many of which will be carried out by untrained practitioners who will put women's lives at risk.

I believe that many abortions could be avoided by enhancing education about, and the availability of, contraception. For that reason, I have regarded as extremely shortsighted the policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations, which have narrowed, rather than widened, the availability of contraception both here in the United States and abroad. I will be working to undo those policies.

Although our views differ on whether abortion should be included in the health-care bill, I understand your reluctance to pay taxes that will go toward something you oppose. Each of us, however, cannot choose what our tax dollars pay for. For example, there are many pacifists who are opposed to war who are still required to pay taxes--some of which may be put toward weapons systems. Although this is one of the founding principles of democracy, it sometimes means that Americans are asked to help pay for programs they do not support personally.

Thank you again for informing me of your views. Although our views differ on this issue, I do value your opinion. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future concerning this or any other issue.

Thank you for your courteous response to my letter opposing governmental subsidies for abortions. Before responding, let me note that every time I've seen a tally of your voting record I've found myself agreeing with almost all the positions you've taken. But not, despite your letter, on abortion. Allow me to start a second round.

1. Yes, the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution protects "the right of a woman to have an abortion, if she chooses to do so." But on what grounds? Because (the Court said) at least until late in pregnancy abortion is a private matter, and therefore not the proper business of government. Whether or not one accepts that rationale, it does now define the law of the land--and I can't see how you can appeal to it to justify government subsidies of abortion.

2. You assert that under a reformed health-care system, a prohibition on government funding of abortion would also prevent abortion coverage under private insurance policies. Why so? The prohibition being sought is aimed solely at preventing use of tax revenues to pay for abortions. I don't know of any constitutional or other legal principle--nor do you cite one--that would make it necessary to impose a ban on abortion coverage by private health insurance policies if subsidizing abortion were disallowed.

3. You point out correctly that in a democracy all must help pay for programs they may not support, and you cite the example of pacifists whose taxes help pay for weapons systems they conscientiously oppose. The example is misleading. Pacifists are a miniscule minority. In contrast, opinion polls report that in the country as a whole (though not, I would guess, in your district), a majority of Americans are opposed to subsidies for abortions.

Granted, nose-counting isn't the sole criterion of democratic legitimacy. But if Congress enacts abortion subsidies it obviously will not be responding to the will of the electorate but rather to the superior funding and more effective lobbying of the prochoice leaders, and to their slicker sloganeering (of this, more below). If you want to know how I feel about that, examine how you feel when the National Rifle Association is able to stall action on gun control, or when the military-industrial complex has decisive clout on issues like the Pentagon budget, or when the oil and tobacco companies call in their chips with legislators on issues of health and the environment.

4. Your strongest argument is based on equity: It seems unfair that poor women in desperate situations who want abortions can't have them solely because they can't afford to pay for them. My sympathy for them is almost great enough to make me forget what happens in an abortion. Almost, but not quite; at an improbable age, I'm parenting again, this time as an adoptive father, and I can't forget that our baby girl, with her infinite charm, would not exist today had her birth mother chosen to abort. It is because I do face what abortion is that I might be tempted, if abortion subsidies are approved, to join those who will clutter the IRS with their refusals to pay some portion of their taxes--just as, during Vietnam, I refused to pay the telephone excise tax enacted to help pay for that foolish and murderous exercise, and got fined. Some conscientious pacifists go further; they accept prison terms for tax refusal.

Conscientious supporters of abortion rights for poor women have an easier out: With impunity, they could create and fund a private system that would accomplish their goal and satisfy their consciences. Instead, they are deploying most of their resources to achieve passage of legislation that will embody their own beliefs and burden the consciences of a great many other Americans.

I don't question the sincerity of their views (or yours). I do question the integrity of the rhetoric that prochoice publicists employ. "A woman's right to choose" rises above any consideration of what is being chosen. A woman's right to "control her own body" gets complicated when the fate of another body is in question. Of itself, choice" isn't necessarily a value. A choice made in ignorance may be a bad choice. A choice made in despair over the absence of socially supported alternatives may be a tragic choice.

At its best, the medical profession insists that any decision we make about our bodies must be an informed choice. Who would deny it? Yet prochoice leaders oppose any requirement that women seeking abortions be fully informed about what is happening in their bodies and about the possible existence of alternatives to abortion.

5. I agree with you that it is appropriate public policy for the government to promote understanding and use of contraception, but with one proviso that you don't mention. Education about contraception should not carry with it any suggestion of official or societal approval of pre-teen, early-teen, or, for that matter, premarital sex; on the contrary, it should give at least equal stress to the far greater physical, psychic, and social benefits of abstention over the use of contraceptives. Though such emphasis need not and indeed should not be grounded on religious belief--it's justifiable in wholly secular terms of common sense and statistics--it would help to accommodate the views of those who oppose contraception as immoral. It's my understanding that some sex education programs that include such an emphasis are effective.