Today, Richard Stith has an i mportant short article on the front page of our website.
He points out that, except for government programs for the poor, our old forms of health insurance, ones that were based more clearly on free market principles, had fairly expansive coverage of elective abortions. The new system, which has a great deal more government involvement, changes the dynamics, and right now it’s not clear whether or not abortions will be part of the government mandated health care that will dominate.
Many conservatives think expanded government involvement is a disaster, and they want to repeal Obamacare. Stith argues that this mentality is wrongheaded, because it misses an opportunity. If something like the Stupak language is now added to the existing changes mandated by Obamacare, then we’ll likely see a significant reduction of insurance coverage that pays for abortions. And given therefore in all likelihood a reduction in the number of abortion.
As I read Stith’s argument, I found myself thinking that the logic is irrefutable. There are of course many, many bad aspects of Obamacare, and there are plenty of good reasons to want to roll back government control. But when it comes to the question of abortion, the pro-life position requires government control. We want our laws to be based on a fundamental respect for innocent life, and as is the case with laws in general this will involve limiting the freedoms of women to chose to have an abortion. In other words, the pro-life cause is inherently pro-government intervention.
Because of Roe v. Wade , we cannot get to this goal directly by way of legislation. Stith points out that the greatly increased regulation of health insurance provides a different, less direct, but nonetheless significant route toward pro-life legislation.
This possibility, which Stith so clearly puts before us, reminds me of something a wise conservative friend once told me: You should be against all expansions of government power, except for the expansions that are necessary.
