Talking Points on Choice Ann Lewis Politics, Inc. Washington, D.C. Unsuccessful efforts to impose an outright ban on abortion have driven the anti-choice forces to shift gears, concentrating on erecting expensive, humiliating and even dangerous barriers. What follows are suggested responses in two categories: Abortion and universal health care, and general restrictions on abortion. Abortion and Health Care Why should abortion services be included in national health care? Because the American people want comprehensive, reliable health care for women and men, a system that combines access to quality care with the ability of individuals with their own physicians to make their own health care decisions. Access to safe abortions that are medically necessary or appropriate is important to women's health. Why should 'pregnancy-related' include abortions? Because health care services must include whatever procedures are considered medically necessary or appropriate according to women and their doctors. These are difficult, complicated decisions. They should be made privately, by doctors and patients. Why not leave this question up to the states? Because I want to see a national health care policy that combines full coverage with individual choices. Not a fold out road map where we tell people you're covered for this procedure in this state, but not in that one; you and your doctor get to make your own decisions in state A, but not if you cross the state line. Why not have abortion services as an extra cost? Because I believe that we should use the same standards for health care coverage for everyone. If a procedure is medically necessary or appropriate, it should be covered. That's the rule for every other kind of health care, and I think it should be the same rule for women's reproductive health care. Abortion is not some kind of luxury; it is a difficult, complicated decision. Are you saying that taxpayers should support this? Is that fair? This is very much about fairness. It's because we care about fairness that we're talking about national health care reform. Even people who disagree about certain aspects of the administration's proposals agree that it's time to adopt a national policy that includes access and coverage. We believe that government should set basic standards for care, and that people should not be barred from exercising certain basic rights because they don't have a high income. That's fairness. Why is it fair to use the tax dollars of people who disagree? It is fair to see that individuals are able to make their own decisions, in consultations with their doctors, about procedures that are medically necessary or appropriate. Now, that may mean some people make choices other people don't agree with. For example, some people disapprove of blood transfusions. That doesn't mean we should tell doctors they can't prescribe blood transfusions. I think it is very important that we respect individuals' moral decisions. That's why the administration plan includes a conscience clause, which ensures that doctors or health care providers who are morally opposed to abortion don't have to participate. Won't this make abortion too easy? One of the goals of a comprehensive health care plan is to put more emphasis on prevention, education and family planning. We can do that with full health care coverage, including sex education, contraceptive services, prevention and family planning. Other Restrictions Waiting Periods I understand the theory behind this, but let's talk about reality. Does this pass the common sense test? What happens to women who work, who have to travel hours to get to a clinic? This bill will double the time she must be away from her family and her work, double the loss of salary, double the cost of travel and child care. That can be a painful difference for women living on the financial edge. Sometimes that difference delays the abortion, increases the cost and the chance of complications. Sometimes anti-choice extremists identify women on their first trip and then harass them at home. I don't think we should expose women to that kind of bullying. Informed Consent: I agree that women considering abortions or any medical procedure should have access to complete and accurate information. The question is, who will decide what that information should be? I don't think politicians or government bureaucracy should be in charge of writing health care information. I think medical issues should be handled by health care professionals, and that includes producing information. Abortion as a Means of Birth Control: This is another example of why the questions of abortion is so difficult to legislate. Suppose there were laws on this subject. How could it be proven that a woman deliberately chose not to use contraception, because she preferred to have an abortion? Are we going to tape people's bedrooms? Use detectives? I think this gets us into an absurd area. It's an area where government doesn't belong. Outlawing Abortion for Sex Selection: I think this is a repulsive concept. I also think that laws proposed to ban it are a kind of smokescreen by people who want to see all abortions banned. They use this example because they know that people like you and me will be repulsed, so we might be willing to outlaw it. Because, as I think about it, how would government ban this? What kind of evidence would be obtained to prove it happened? Who would testify? Who would be punished? Fortunately, the simple fact is that there is no evidence that this occurs in the United States. Parental Consent: We all want to make the family stronger. The question is, how do we achieve that goal? The good news is that 85 percent of young women do discuss the decision to have an abortion with their families. Now, how do we reach the remaining 15 percent? I have a problem with a legislative mandate. It does nothing to help families that work, and it penalizes those young women unlucky enough to be born into families that don't work. In the worst cases, it can expose them to real danger. =================================================== How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All other rights reserved. For more information contact: Pat Lewis National Jewish Democratic Council 711 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-7636 =================================================== This document is from the Politics section of the WELL gopher server: gopher://gopher.well.com/11/Politics/ Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com .