Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, on Monday signed into law a controversial measure blocking women from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage through the federal healthcare exchange.
In other words, no taxpayer-subsidized policies that include abortion coverage.
So let us put this in perspective. A person who smokes, eats or drinks to excess, or takes illegal drugs, can get subsidized (read: taxpayer assisted) medical insurance through the federal healthcare exchange. You and I are subsidizing resource-draining, lifestyle-losers, and Ducey has no problem with that.
But a woman who might possibly, at some future date, through the most natural of acts—sexual intercourse—experience an unintended pregnancy, cannot get the same subsidized insurance that millions of lifestyle-losers enjoy, if that coverage includes abortions.
I’m beating a worn drum here, but there are myriad health-related reasons why a woman might need a legal medical procedure known as an abortion. Like an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when an embryo implants somewhere other than the uterus, such as in one of the fallopian tubes. Or to prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems, something not often diagnosed until the second term of pregnancy. Or physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued. Some women have medical issues that could mean risking death or severe injury if the pregnancy is carried to term.
Is a woman supposed to bear the expense of an abortion if the medical need for one arises? Or should she just pay privately for a separate policy, at up to three times the exchange rate, to ensure that if any of these conditions present themselves somewhere in her future, she is covered?
And what about rape? Can a woman be so discriminated against that she has no recourse if she is raped and becomes pregnant and wishes to have an abortion, and doesn’t have the insurance coverage or the money to obtain one?
This one will be challenged in the courts, it will be struck down, and women will be able to get subsidized insurance that covers all of their medical needs, including abortion—for whatever reason. But in the meantime, a woman will have to choose to do one of the following:
- Forego having any medical insurance and pay the tax penalty;
- Pay three times as much for an unsubsidized private policy;
- Settle for buying an exchange policy that does not cover this legal medical procedure.
A woman should not have to make any of these limited choices. But these male politicians see nothing wrong with severely limiting women’s choices.
They don’t accept that women should have any choice in the matter of deciding what to do with their own bodies.
They don’t accept medical science, which supports health reasons for having an abortion.
They don’t accept the law—you know, the one that says a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy—handed down by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
No, these medically ignorant, meddling male politicians think they know better than a woman what she should do with her own body. They think they know more than physicians about the medical necessity for abortions. They think they know better than the Supreme Court what rights and what choices a woman should have.
It is time to vote these arrogant fools out of office, to wipe the slate clean of misogyny, and to re-establish, in no uncertain terms, a woman’s right to choose. Let these male politicians believe what they will personally, but don’t let them use their elected status to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of women.
We’re always going to argue about abortion. It’s a hard choice and it’s controversial, and that’s why I’m pro-choice, because I want people to make their own choices.~ Hillary Clinton