Friday, November 5, 2010
"Reforming the Pro-Choice Market"
Our colleague, Richard Stith, has this essay up at First Things, "Reforming the Pro-Choice Market." Richard argues, among other things, that:
Some pro-life leaders have advocated repeal of “Obamacare,” because it requires the public in various ways to fund abortion. Although I agree with their assessment of the law, I disagree with their proposed remedy. The pro-life cause would be far better served to keep the current law, provided that it be amended to include something like the original addition proposed by Congressman Stupak that fully excluded elective abortion from all state plans, except as an individual rider, consciously chosen by the insured person.
My disagreement stems not just from the fact that the healthcare law includes various pro-life provisions, such as new help for pregnant women, which may make them less likely to choose abortion. I think that even if these good aspects of the legislation are outweighed by its bad aspects, that is, if the net effect of the legislation at the moment is to advance abortion, it should not be repealed. . . .
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/reforming-the-pro-choice-market.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
How is Rep. Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" different than what Prof. Stith is proposing? Or does he think it is the same? The Republicans already support Smith's Act, independent of wanting to repeal--so in that sense the Republicans are not proposing to repeal INSTEAD OF cutting abortion out of it. In fact, to be fair, the Republicans want to repeal AND replace, so the question in Prof. Stith's context is whether the replacement would be better, worse, or the same as the new status quo.