I try very hard not to discuss abortion with people. It's one of those topics where good and nobly held beliefs collide in a contradiction, with little or no resolution that will make everyone happy. Wittgenstein would say that, since the question has no obvious answer, then there is something wrong with the question. I firmly agree.
For myself, the question has always been one of choice. NOT, a choice between abortion and having a baby, mind you, but rather a choice that each of us must make constantly concerning our responsibility to ourselves and our responsibility to others. I'm not raising this issue as my attempt to resolve the abortion debate. I bring it up because the scope of the argument needs broadening.
In our modern world, reproduction has become a community act (get your mind out the gutter, conception is still a very private act). We have attempted, in ways various and sundry to ease the burden on those who choose to have children. We have tax-cuts for dependents, family leave (thank you , Bill Clinton), and insurance coverage for pre-natal and natl care (for those affording the coverage, of course). It would be silly to pretend that the cost of those does not pass in part to us all, a community based act if ever there was one. I accept my burden in that task, and dutifully pay my portion of insurance premiums and taxes that cover the costs of others having babies. This helps the community. We offer this support based on the idea that pregnancy is a given health condition, with certain medical and medicinal needs. We don't do this because the community owns the baby or owes the mother. We do this because women and babies are an important part of healthy communities.
However, it has always galled me that there are costs associated with a person's choice to not have children as well, and as a community, those costs have been ignored. Many would immediately argue that not having kids doesn't help the community, it is not a health condition, and hence is not worth of communal support. And I would respond, that's just crap. Many women live, work and help in our communities. Their value for such can't be measured on whether or not they choose to bare children. The contribution of over half our population cannot be devalued based on their effective role as breeders. Women (and men) must have choices as to whether or not they will add to the population. They must have the tools to be healthy members of our communities. That's why health insurance exists, isn't it? If we believe in this as value, if we believe that women have value beyond their ability to spawn, then reproductive choice must be defended and supported. Yet we don't do this. We offer honestly given monetary support to the health event of procreation, but none to the health condition of avoiding pregnancy. Both cases speak to our communal concern for the health of its members. Yet, seemingly, we can only support the state of pregnancy (or trying to get pregnant, or even getting a harder erection for men ... insurance pays for Viagra, right?) That would be laughable, if it weren't so wrong.
Fortunately, I'm not the only person who seems to think these things. Jon Tester, in a missive today, cuts right to the quick of the issue:
Over the last five years, radical activists have been waging a
stealth campaign targeting reproductive freedom—and the choice they are
targeting is whether Americans should be able to plan their families.
We’re not talking about access to abortion. We’re talking about access to contraception.
Contraception shouldn’t be a controversial issue. It prevents unintended pregnancies and prevents abortions.
The emphasis is mine, but important, nonetheless. The ability to choose the state of your health shouldn't be a controversial issue. It just shouldn't. Americans should be able to choose the contributions they make to the communities in which we live. No woman owes society her babies, and no man owes society a random number of children. We can control the outcomes of our behavior, and the state of our own bodies, our health, and decrease a stress on our communities. Why should the question ever be asked as to whether or not reproduction is required? It's been answered, and most of us like the result.
Yet today there is a quiet war being waged regarding access to
contraception. And here in Montana, most insurance plans don’t cover
birth control, even when they cover Viagra.
I don’t think that’s right.
The thing I like the best about Jon Tester, right now ... when he doesn't think something is right, he does something about it.
I have requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General of
Montana to clarify whether insurance companies that provide
prescription drug coverage must also, by law, cover contraception.
I think we have a good case and that we’ll prevail on this issue. The law is on our side. That’s good.
This
is an issue of fairness and basic health for Montanans. It also gets to
the heart of Montana values – freedom, choice, and responsibility. This
is about making sure women and families have access to health coverage
and Montanans can make their own decisions.
That means that soon, in Montana, women and families will have the insurance coverage they need and deserve.
That’s the sort of thing we should all be able to agree on.
There is little to nothing more that I can add to what he's said. Any effort to reduce abortions and assist our communities is just peachy to me. I have to admit to being surprised that a Montana politician would come out with a stance so strong, so thoughtful ... so absolutely correct, that my already high respect for him went up several notches. Montana is about choice, for women, for men, and for families. What Jon Tester has done is simply the right thing to do.