Student accepts state funding for abortions in some cases, but doesn't want state funding for all abortions

Dear Senator Righter,

As you know, I am a constituent in your district from Teutopolis. We have talked before – you helped in my past internship at Illinois Policy, and I’m sure your previous aide, Judy, has told you about my recent internship in Washington D.C. I am a Social Work major at the University of Illinois Springfield, and I wanted to bring your attention to a bill that I believe you should vote no to.

HB 40, Access to Abortion, is a bill that provides taxpayer funded abortions to all women in Illinois, including those on Medicare and state employee’s insurance plans. Currently, the state only provides funding for abortions in cases such as rape, incest, and to protect the mother’s life. The bill also ensures that abortion will be legal in Illinois even if the federal government repeals Roe v. Wade.

I believe that this bill should not be passed for multiple reasons. Though I am conservative, I am pro-choice. I believe that women should be able to choose what is best for their lives and their bodies. However, I disagree with this bill. First, this bill would cost Illinoisians millions of dollars, millions of dollars we do not have and cannot afford. In 2015, there were nearly 40,000 abortions in Illinois, and if abortions were free, it is proven that even more women would get them. Currently, abortions cost about $1,650. That would amount to millions of dollars of further debt that the state cannot afford.

I agree that in rape, incest, and mother safety cases, abortion can be payed for by state tax dollars because that was not the woman’s decision, but in other situations, that should not be the case. It is not hard to not get pregnant. Plan B is around $30-$40, male and female condoms are a few dollars. Abstinence is free. Because of the Affordable Care Act, many women’s birth control is free or inexpensive. We should not provide free abortions to everyone because they find it too difficult to buy protection, “condoms don’t feel good”, are careless with their birth control, or do not have the education to understand how to not become pregnant.

When a woman chooses to have sex and not protect herself from pregnancy, the only person at fault is her and the man. It should not be the job of her fellow citizens to bail her out of the problem she put herself in. Senator Righter, please vote NO to HB 40.

My comment on this excellent example of a policy advocacy letter is that it is refreshing to read an opinion on this issue that is nuanced and takes a stand based on ideals of fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.  So often any policy advocacy related to abortion is entirely one-sided with an extreme stand totally against nearly all abortions and state funding for abortions or else totally in favor of policies to make abortion accessible to all, including those who can’t afford it.  Another thing that I find interesting is that you hardly even touch the moral issues related to “rights of unborn children” or “rights of the mothers to control their bodies.”  You dispose of that right at the start with a statement about your general opinion that abortions ought to be a women’s matter of choice, but when it comes to the public funding them, the public purse ought to facilitate abortions only in the three rare extremes (life of the mother, rape, and incest).  The letter is also a good example because of its elegance and directness.

A few points just for us to think about, that are really not about the letter itself:

1) If someone wants to make abortions free for all those who want them, they can create a charity and fund abortions for poor women.  Let the advocates for accessible abortion provide them through private means.

2) What about the case of unborn children who are severely malformed or unhealthy, so that a doctor predicts they may perish within hours of birth; could that situation be added to the standard categories of rape, incest, and health-of-the-mother?

3) What about cases where the unborn children have a reasonably good chance of survival, at least for a matter of years rather than hours, but are likely to be in need of intensive medical intervention throughout their lives, and are also likely to be so profoundly disabled that they present a tremendous potential burden on the society and the family?  In those cases, can financial considerations be taken into consideration, and should the state fund abortions to save money in the long run? 

4) And, what about the moral issues?  If the state is going to fund some abortions in special cases, can anything be done to address the objections of those who feel so strongly that abortion is akin to murder?  It is normally accepted in a democracy that when you fulfill your duties as a citizen and pay your taxes, you understand that some of that money you’ve contributed will go to fund things you strongly object to (I object to a wide range of things done in my name by my government with my tax dollars, especially the killing of many innocent people with our careless, callous, and cruel arial bombardments from drones and so forth). But, is abortion a special case, where the opponents are so deeply morally offended by the act that the government should fund those special case abortions only with a special source of funding that some persons could refuse to pay?  Perhaps it could be handled in a way similar to federal funding for elections, where taxpayers check a box to agree to contribute some of their tax contribution to support public funding of elections.  

The four points I raise were correctly ignored in the letter; I just offer them to provoke some thought and debate.

Student considers public funding for abortion in Illinois

Abortion Coverage

In recent news, Illinois lawmakers have passed the law that abortions can be paid with medical insurance. This topic has been a big thing recently since many people do not think that medical insurance should cover abortions because it promotes killing a child. However, others believe it allows all women to be in control of their body.

As stated earlier, many people feel that this law promotes the killing of a human being. Some critics of this newly passed law state how people will now try to use this as a new form of birth control and that this might be taken advantage of. Nonetheless, many people have been asking the question “where will funding for this come from?”. This is an issue because higher education cannot be funded but the state has money to cover the harming of children.

However, people who support the new law states that since this has now passed it will allow people who accidentally got pregnant and cannot afford to get an abortion to do so. Many say this will reduce harm towards unwanted children.

In my opinion, I think that abortions should not be covered under Medicaid because that extra money can be used to better the state. I do, however, think that abortions should be cheaper so people want have to stress about the payment of an abortion. 

SEPEDA-MILLER, KIANNAH. "Democratic Illinois House OKs Public Funding for Abortions."U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 25 Apr. 2017. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.

It's interesting to note that poor women are more likely to have abortions.  Poor women are more likely to have their health insurance with Medicaid.  So, when poor women who use Medicaid want abortions, should their Medicaid cover the termination of their pregnancy. 

The critical question with abortion is the issue of when a zygote or embryo or fetus becomes a child.  At some point in the pregnancy, the baby is a human child, and should be protected, unless there are complications that endanger the mother’s life or possibly defects that mean the child will die within seconds or hours of birth.  But, when does this point stand?  Is it within minutes of fertilization of the egg, or the zygote's implantation into the wall of the uterus?  Is it in the eighth week of development, the 10th week, the 12th week, the 15th week, the 20th week, the 22nd week, or when?  So long as the thing in the woman is not a human child, abortions seem morally neutral, or possibly beneficial.  A person who doesn't want a child, is too young or too poor to rear the child, and wants to terminate a pregnancy before the embryo has become a child is possibly doing something meritorious.  But, when an abortion is performed after the threshold has been crossed, then an abortion is essentially the killing of a child, and it is morally objectionable. 

Very few Americans think that the embryo is a human child in the first week or two of development, and most people are not opposed to abortions performed in the first month or first six weeks of a pregnancy.  Those who do oppose abortions even in the first hours or weeks of a pregnancy almost always base their opposition on religious beliefs, and our government is supposed to stay out of theological and religious disputes.  

Opposing public spending on abortions on the basis of cost seems odd to me.  The costs of allowing a poor and unwilling mother bear a child are potentially far higher to that mother and society in general than the relatively modest cost of an abortion.  The main objection to public-funded abortions that appeals to me is the idea that some people take such a strong and deeply-held objection to abortions that we ought to respect their strong feelings and refrain from using public expenditure on such a controversial procedure.  Let abortions be funded by private charities and non-profit corporations.  I say this argument has some appeal to me, but I do not say it is persuasive.  I actually hold no firm opinion on this matter; I'm inclined to desire that abortions are legal and affordable and accessible, but I'm also inclined to oppose abortions and desire a society in which no woman chooses to have an abortion. 

I recommend the ACLU fact sheet about public funding for abortions. 

A television station in Chicago covered this issue. 

Public broadcasting in Urbana-Champaign covered this bill as well. 

A Pro-Life student urges politicians to protect funding for Planned Parenthood

To The Honorable Senators of Illinois, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth,

Greetings, today I am writing to you to express my concern for the funding of Planned Parenthood. Over the years there has been many a debate about the morality of Planned Parenthood and whether their services are right or wrong. Even though I myself am an avid pro-lifer and have participated in several pro-life events such as the March for Life in Washington D.C., this is not what I want my letter to be about. I simply aim to address the issue of the allocation of funds for the Planned Parenthood program.

Despite the bad reputation among many of us who are pro-Life, which Planned Parenthood has earned itself over the years with many scandals, the program does have many good things to offer to our community. These good things include STD testing, birth control, cancer screenings, and their sex ed program. In 2014 Planned Parenthood helped 4,218,149 with STI/STD treatment and testing alone (PPFA pg. 2). In that same year they provided contraception to 2,945,059 people (PPFA pg. 2). These statistics alone prove that Planned Parenthood does more than just terminate pregnancies. 

Few would argue that Planned Parenthood is all bad and that their work in treating STDs and cancer screenings is not a valued asset to our society. However, there are people like myself who are deeply troubled by the idea of our tax money funding procedures that we so vehemently oppose. In 2014 Planned Parenthood received $528 million dollars from the government alone (Kurtzleben np).  That money counts as 40% of their total revenue (Kurzleben np).  Realistically it makes sense that not all of the tax money goes to abortions; however, people who stand on the side of pro-life do not wish for a single penny of their hard earned money to go to abortion. However, many would agree that the money the government allocates to Planned Parenthood is still useful and necessary.

Therefore, I propose that there be a policy that dictates where and how the money the government gives to Planned Parenthood is used. This policy would also require Planned Parenthood to provide the public with financial statements for every penny of their $528 million dollar revenue. The government could make it simple for Planned Parenthood by giving out their funds in the form of grants that can only be used for a certain aspect of Planned Parenthoods programing. For instance say the government only allow 100 of the 528 million to be used for the distribution of condoms overseas in impoverished nations. 

Despite how people feel towards Planned Parenthood, they are the “leading providers of high-quality, affordable health care for women, men, and young people, and the nation's largest provider of sex education” (Parenthood np).  I think that having a policy like the one I proposed would be an excellent compromise to the pro-life, pro-choice battle that all too often places Planned Parenthood in the crossfires. 

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely, 

[Student's Name]

References

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?”. NPR it’s all politics. August 5, 2015.

PPFA — Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (2015a). 2014 Annual Affiliate Service Census Executive Summary. New York: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (An internal report). _____. (2015b). 2014-2015 Annual Report. New York: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. 

Parenthood, Planned. "Planned Parenthood at a Glance." Planned Parenthood. N.p., 17 Feb. 2017. Web. 22 Feb. 2017. 

This is an interesting example of allowing a political leader to know that although you are representing a particular camp in some controversial issue, you do not necessarily support all the opinions associated with your camp.  You are pro-life, and against abortions, and you especially do not want money spent on abortions.  Many who agree with you on that issue want to defund Planned Parenthood.  You are suggesting that despite your pro-life stance, you still want to protect Planned Parenthood and ensure that it receives government payment for the services other than abortion that is delivers.

As another aside, Planned Parenthood is already prevented from using federal dollars on abortions.  See the Fact Check story from several years ago about this. Planned Parenthood describes how it gets federal dollars mainly through Medicaid and Title X for preventive health services (never abortion, which cannot be paid for with federal dollars).  So, to some extent, the policy you are advocating for here is already one that exists.