I would like to assure George Pisano ("Keeping the record straight," Dec. 1) that there was nothing blatantly misrepresentative about my criticism of his comments on the Stupak amendment. My point was simply to state that abortion is a constitutionally-protected procedure and that those who applaud this amendment on moral grounds are necessarily disadvantaging lower-income women who will require federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the House bill.
Mr. Pisano apparently has no qualms at this possibility, since he writes that, of those women who currently have private health insurance, "their larger incomes give them an advantage at the game." I assume by "the game" he means staying mentally and physically healthy while wondering whether to go to an emergency room for care in the absence of health insurance. This is the scenario that President Obama wants to address in his calls for reform: expanding coverage to millions of Americans to ensure social equity. The last time I checked, the federal government is charged with "promot[ing] the general welfare" of the entire country, not just those of elevated socioeconomic status.
Mr. Pisano writes that "The Stupak amendment requires that everyone, no matter which economic bracket they belong to, must pay for their own abortions." That is accurate, but imprecise: only participants in the exchange will be restricted in their plan's coverage and only then if they receive federal subsidies. I doubt that those women in higher economic brackets will qualify for subsidies, thus they are free from this restriction. Therefore, this is why I claimed that lower-income women would play by a different set of rules. In that vein, I do not feel that the government should be in a position to veto any woman's decision to seek an abortion. Simply because the woman is not dying or has been the victim of rape or incest (which the Stupak amendment does, in a token gesture of empathy, cover) does not make the burden of an unwanted pregnancy any less of a vital health issue.
Finally, I am not necessarily sympathetic to the proposition that anti-choice taxpayers would be "coerced" into paying for abortions if the amendment were not passed. Should Americans who object to war be exempt from paying taxes because inevitably their money will be used to support the troops and weapons that are used for the purpose of killing? While I think it would be a novel idea for people to opt-out of funding government programs that they detest, I find it preferable to work through legitimate policy channels to openly debate the causes and effects of the policies. If we take abortion policy as an example, will restricting abortions in the manner of this amendment result in fewer abortions? Or will women seek unlicensed or risky means of obtaining the procedure cheaply? Which option would save more lives?
Michael Karlik\nCLAS III
Read More
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | YesterdayWith the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | 3 days agoFor the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
EDITORIAL: End the Batten Curve
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoThe Batten School must allow professors to design grading systems tailored to the needs of their own students.
