By Karma Salvato and Jennifer Muir
Staff Writers
PRO
By Karma Salvato
Staff Writer
Decision will go a long way in helping poor pregnant women get the health care they need and protect rights of the unborn.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)
The Bible reminds us that God devised a plan for each of our lives before we were even born. But, the controversial question has always been, “When does life begin?” Many scientists agree that a new and unique human individual is created at the moment of conception. From that moment, life begins. Any further formation of the person is merely a matter of time, growth and maturation — a process that each of us continues throughout our entire life.
And now, the Bush administration has defined human embryos and developing fetuses as children, finally giving them the rights they have deserved for so long.
According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, embryos and developing fetuses are “eligible for a government health care program, saying they qualify from the moment of conception.” In other words, state funds can now be allocated to offer prenatal health care services to women who before this were unable to afford the cost. It’s about time.
This shift in belief shows that there is hope for our society, and that change is possible.
Should only the wealthy deserve such necessary treatment? Of course not. You should get medical care whether you come from an affluent family or one who struggles financially. If you are pregnant, you deserve the best medical care possible. Under the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, low-income pregnant women can now receive prenatal treatment.
In the past, the state of an embryo and a fetus has caused much discussion and debate. This new ruling will most likely not end that battle, but instead refuel the fire.
There may be two sides to the issue, but we cannot ignore the facts. It has been medically proven that the baby’s heart starts beating from 14-28 days after conception, and by the 30th day almost every organ has started to form.
With medical facts in place, how can one ignore the rights of an unborn child?
“All we’’re doing is providing care for poor mothers so their children are going to be born healthy,” Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said in a recent Los Angeles Times article. “How anybody can now turn this into a pro-choice or pro-life argument, I can’t understand it.” But on some level, it is a pro-choice and a pro-life argument, isn’t it? For so long, the rights of an unborn child have been argued over.
A baby doesn’t suddenly become human after a few months — it is human the moment the ovum and sperm unite. In those first hours of fertilization, 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father are brought together forming a new entity with characteristics, personality traits and facial features all uniquely specific.
Some may argue that this is President Bush’s way of burying a political goal behind a health-related one, quietly moving toward outlawing abortion all together. Maybe it is. But, the pro-choice movement has had issues continually ruled in their favor. Isn’t it time for the other side to win a few?
Abortion rights advocates argue that this undermines the whole premise of Roe v. Wade, taking away women’s reproductive choices. What about the rights of the unborn? Even though they didn’t choose to be born, don’t they have a right to live? Isn’t the real issue about doing what is best to care for and nurture our unborn?
With this new healthcare program in place, low-income women who before felt that abortion was their only option now have another choice.
Abortion is not only a woman’s issue, it is a human issue. It is time to start examining this topic through the eyes of the unborn, instead of selfishly through our own. With abortion, what we’re really talking about are the rights of human beings versus the “right” of an individual to kill another human being. One individual has the capacity to voice her opinions and feelings, while the other does not. We are talking about one person’s right to live versus another person’s right to choose death for another human being. I thought only God was allowed to have that kind of power.
Ruling that an embryo and a developing fetus are indeed children has certainly strengthened the right-to-life philosophy. It may even lead to a reversal of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion? I guess we’ll have to just wait and see.
CON
By Jennifer Muir
Staff Writer
Government could insure needy mothers another way, idea is just a backdoor move to push anti-abortion agenda.
All Americans, regardless of their stance on abortion, should be alarmed by President George Bush’s proposal to allow states to make “Unborn children eligible for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).” Bush is, essentially, disguising his pro-life agenda, one of the nation’s most debated issues, in the costume of beneficial health care support for the poor. The proposal would provide health insurance coverage for children from low-income families.
The bill will allow for an embryo, from the time of its conception, to be considered a child and therefore be eligible for this insurance coverage. The implications of this bill, however, could be devastating to the pro-choice campaign in America.
An interim step in overturning the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which guaranteed a woman’s right to choose, is establishing embryos as persons under the law. This bill accomplishes this goal, and thus furthers the Bush administration’s clear goal of overturning the ground-breaking decision in favor of women’s rights.
However, the administration refuses to even acknowledge the implications of passing such a bill. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson seemed surprised and appalled that anyone could propose the alterior motive of this “innocent” legislation. “How anybody can try and turn this into a pro-choice, pro-abortion argument, I don’t understand,” he told the L.A. Times on Feb. 1.
Does he think Americans are stupid?
Politicians analyze every syllable of every word they say and write. To claim the Bush administration never considered America’s abortion issue when drafting this bill is either a lie or an admission that our country is being run by a group of idiots.
Our president has a responsibility to address issues on his agenda clearly and openly, and not disguise his ideologies in programs that are intended to benefit low-income families. But representatives for the bill say that this is simply an “easier” option to put an idle pool of money to use fairly quickly.
Yet there is another option that is just as time and cost effective, but that does not threaten a woman’s right to choose. Thompson also said he would support a bill that would add pregnant women to CHIPs automatically and issue waivers for them to receive coverage under the plan, which would achieve the same result as the proposed bill. However, Bush has not pushed for this bill to pass.
By not addressing the abortion issue in this bill, Bush is denying Americans’ rights to fully consider its implications for women. Because the embryo will now be the client and the pregnant woman will simply be a vessel to carry it to term, women could be denied life-saving health coverage to uphold the rights of the embryo.
Imagine your older sister recently got pregnant. She and her husband had recently graduated from college and entered the workforce, so their company’s insurance has not yet kicked in. Your sister decided to utilize the CHIPs health coverage. Two weeks after you hear the good news, your sister calls you, barely able to speak because at her last check up the doctor found a cancerous lump in her breast. He told her that if she began a cycle of medication and chemotherapy immediately, she could probably beat the disease.
Your sister cannot begin the treatment, however, because her insurance coverage holds the interests of her unborn child above her own, and some of the medication she would need to take could harm the embryo. Without the treatment, however, she will be able to have her child but will not survive the cancer, and her unborn child will never have ample opportunity to know its mother.
While this example is extreme, it is a possibility under the bill the Bush administration proposes. This jargon and political strategy affects real people, and the government is responsible for showing, or at least acknowledging, this perspective on a bill that they say has nothing to do with women’s rights.
Although I am proud to say that I am pro-choice, I am aware that the Pepperdine audience is predominately pro-life. I am not writing this to change anyone’s beliefs about abortion. I am simply pointing out that Bush’s campaign is immoral in its deceptiveness to the American people.
Just as the elderly would be at arms about a public service bill that deceptively furthered the depletion of the social security budget, so should any American be wary of an administration that furthers its agenda in such an underhanded manner.
The issues are strong enough to stand alone. Let them go through the legal process that ensures our great country’s freedom.
February 07, 2002