Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, October 20, 1993 TAG: 9310280356
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ANDREA SEXTON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
While the humor of this joke is debatable, it's no laughing matter that Clinton's health-care proposal establishes government-mandated funding for every abortion in America. Attempting to minimize the controversy of ``health''-care abortions, he claims that his proposal merely restates the ``status quo,'' presumably because Clinton thinks insurance plans already cover abortion services for most insured women.
This is simply not true. If it were, Planned Parenthood's president, Pamela Maraldo, would certainly not have said recently that including abortion in the plan ``will be a momentous event just as significant ... as Roe v. Wade ... [and] will constitute the defining moment for reproductive rights.''
As proposed, the Clinton plan would cover all ``pregnancy-related services'' that are ``medically necessary and appropriate.'' He says that this ``medically necessary'' formulation is standard insurance-policy language with respect to abortion. What he fails to mention is that currently those insurance companies that use this language can interpret the phrase as broadly or narrowly as they choose. Under federal law, this language would not be ambiguous but would function as a government code for ``abortion on demand.'' Even Planned Parenthood vice president, Bill Hamilton, admits that ``medically necessary'' means ``anything that a doctor and a woman construe to be in her best interests.'' Sadly, this would include, for example, an early abortion performed because the mother doesn't want to interrupt her career, as well as a late-term abortion performed because the baby is the ``wrong'' sex. Few Americans would characterize these as medically necessary abortions.
There is nothing in current law that remotely resembles Clinton's proposal to mandate abortion coverage. In fact, Congress has specifically excluded abortion from the scope of ``pregnancy-related services.'' The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for example, required certain employers to provide insurance for pregnancy-related services, but specifically excluded abortion. Likewise, Congress has prohibited payments for abortion under Medicaid. Five states actually prohibit insurers from including abortion in health plans, except by purchase of a separate rider.
While current law allows employers and their insurers a choice of whether to cover abortions, the Clinton proposal f+icompelso all employers and insurers to provide payments for abortion on demand. Not even First Baptist Church or the Virginia Society for Human Life would be exempted from paying for abortions under this plan.
If the Clinton proposal passes, citizens of this nation, through our employers and taxes, will pay for every abortion performed in this country. Further, under his proposal, where abortion would always be covered, the number of abortions is likely to dramatically increase from its current 1.5 million per year.
On Sept. 28, the U.S. Senate again passed the Hyde Amendment to limit public funding for abortions. This confirms that, according to our elected representatives, the vast majority of American people are still opposed to public funding of abortions. This could be a hollow victory for the unborn children of America if Clinton is successful in achieving his mandatory abortion coverage in the health-care plan. Unlike Clinton, Americans do not want to ``just pay the bill'' for the extermination of children. \
Andrea Sexton of Salem is spokeswoman for the Roanoke Chapter of the Virginia Society for Human Life.
by CNB