Will the reform bill cover abortions?

U.S. Congress must reconsider limitation on federal funding

If you’re still following the tiring debate over health care reform, I’m sure you agree that the fight seems to get more convoluted and complex every day. Uncertainty over what will happen in the next few months seems to be overwhelmingly present among politicians and activists alike.

Now there are five drafts of the health care bill in Congress – two in the Senate and three in the House. Although the spirit of all drafts remains the same – millions of uninsured Americans would receive subsidized health care – the details in each bill reflect vastly different and conflicting priorities and interests.

If you think that the health care debate is heated now, wait a few more weeks for the real action.
The health insurance reform bills have instigated a more emotional and fundamental debate on the sidelines: the debate over the issue of abortion coverage.

Many of those who critiqued the reform bills by claiming that the government has no business getting between mutual decisions of doctors and patients are now claiming that the government must restrict the use of federal funds for abortions. Sound hypocritical?

Of course the debate over abortion is not a rational one and everything is up for grabs once it comes into the picture. So I’m not surprised that hypocritical arguments are being thrown around. But what makes the issue even more complex is that different polls across the country show conflicting conclusions about public opinion on the subject.

While some claim that support for legal abortion is dwindling, others claim that the public’s views on the subject have remained stable in the last decade – with a majority in support of legal abortion. But at least one thing has remained constant in legal practice over decades: The courts have constantly upheld restrictions on the federal funding of abortion.

Current law bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in extreme cases like rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life. And so, the joint federal-state Medicare program and the federally-subsidized insurance that covers federal employees, military personnel, American Indians and women in prison does not cover abortions otherwise.

At least one version of the bill preserves the legal status quo but still allows for abortion coverage: It requires insurance providers to separate federal money from the money received from individual premiums and co-pays and use the non-federal money to pay for abortions.

In every state, there would be at least one option that covers abortions and one that does not. Opponents of this version of the bill claim that an imaginary divide in the accounting books is only a way to dodge the law. I cannot claim I disagree completely. But it seems like the best option so far.

Other versions prohibit abortion coverage altogether for insurers who receive any federal funds. These versions allow women to buy extra insurance “riders” if they want abortions covered. Basically, women would have to purchase separate insurance if they want the option to abort in the future.

But this option is ridiculous, as no woman predicts when and if she will need an abortion before she gets pregnant.

It only requires fairly simple economic judgment to realize that not many women will opt for the “rider” insurance, as the need for an abortion is almost always unpredictable. As a result, the market for such an option will diminish even though the need for abortions will not.

Many have correctly pointed out that this option will unfairly affect poor women, as they will have a harder time scraping together the money to pay for abortions themselves.

There has been little problem with a law that prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions in the past, as only a relative minority of people were affected by the limitation.

Now that millions more will be affected by the restriction as a majority of insurers will receive some sort of federal funding, there is no doubt that the issue of abortion will stir heated debates in Congress and across the country once again.

The health insurance reform bill must include provisions to allow access to abortion, whether it is federally funded or not.
As abortion is legal, Congress must take action to ensure that the option of abortion not be threatened for anyone – rich or poor.

CSUN rejects health care bill

Student senators’ and executives’ views conflict, cause tension Read more

Decriminalization of drugs: opportunity or not?

New bill in Mexico could set new standard for U.S. law

With the recent decriminalization of drugs in Mexico, commotion is stirring across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The bill, which decriminalizes possession of small amounts of drugs, has been scrutinized and misinterpreted by much of the mass media in the U.S.

Drug war “experts” and government officials are adamant in their claims that the decriminalization will lead to more drug trafficking and more addicted people on the streets.

Supporters of the bill say it will help to ensure recreational users are not overcrowding the prison system. They argue that this gives officials more time to spend finding big cartel drug traffickers, while nixing loopholes that enabled corrupt policemen to benefit from addicts’ bribes.

The reality is, while Mexican supporters of this legislation believe this is the best step in curtailing police corruption, the commotion created surrounding it in recent weeks is mainly being felt here in the U.S.

“People are hysterical about drug use,” explained a local Mexican professor to Rocky Neptun, writer for Narconews.

“A kind of obsessive paranoia that borders on madness.”

When the U.S. sees the decriminalization of drugs occur right across the border, it is the first instinct of officials, like San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, to panic.

“Now they will go [to Mexico] because they can get drugs,” said Lansdowne.

The fear is that college students and American youth will go to Mexico not only for alcohol-fueled vacations, but to get their drugs, too.

What Lansdowne fails to see or come to terms with, is that no matter how much money is pumped into fighting the war on drugs, people will always have a way of getting them even without having to go across the border.

When Neptun went to Mexico to see how citizens reacted to the law, he found that it wasn’t considered a major breakthrough to most Mexicans.

Liberal supporters of the bill within the U.S., who have been hoping to pass something similar here for years, are envious that such a bill was passed and signed into law in Mexico.

The opposition continues to argue that with decriminalization comes increased drug use, sales and trafficking – an argument more based in opinion and personal morals and values, than in hard evidence.

There isn’t much hard evidence of this because there are still few governments in the Americas that have decriminalized drugs.

Trends show that most of the Americas are determined to lessen the criminalization of people who possess drugs as well.

Ricardo Soberon, director of the Drug Research and Human Rights Center in Lima, Peru, explained, “Latin America is disappointed with the results of the current drug policies and is exploring alternatives.”

Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia and Argentina recently enacted similar laws to Mexico’s, that eliminate jail time for marijuana.

Keep in mind that this legislation does not legalizing all drugs, as some articles may lead one to believe. In fact, it is supposed to increase penalties for people selling drugs and increase support for addicts who need rehabilitation.

The degree at which we are afraid of people altering or freeing their minds has reached new heights.
This is not to lessen the seriousness of the drug use problem, which far surpasses recreational use.
The bill, which at first glance aims to help addicts by supporting them in rehabilitation efforts, falls miles short of attaining that goal. The bill doesn’t fund any rehabilitation centers or explain the means by which people can get help from the government.

If changes are made, the policy could be very effective in doing everything that the bill’s supporters promise. If current loopholes remain, then all advocates of legalization in the U.S. can kiss that dream goodbye.

Within the next few years, Mexico could become a model for all other countries regarding their drug laws. If the bill is edited correctly to really help those in need, we could see the world change for the better.

If Mexico does not act in the best interest of its people and does more damage to its citizenry than good, it will serve as the newest, best example of why drugs shouldn’t be legalized.

If this legislation fails, besides adding another notch to the belts of American congressmen, officials will use it as evidence that drugs have no business being legal in our society.

For Mexican people today, our nation in the future and the entire global community, the opportunity that this bill provides is great. People have the ability to control their personal experiences more than ever without government interference.

Now let’s hope it fulfills it’s potential.