On Jan. 9, members of the House held a hearing on HR7, otherwise known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) led the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, composed of 12 additional male Congressmen, in discussing the legislation that would permanently prohibit health insurance coverage of and subsidies for abortion in federal programs, including the Affordable Care Act. Parties on both sides continue to argue whether abortion is a public good worthy of funding and whether it should be included in a “women’s health agenda.” However, the core issue is not reproductive rights. Instead, it is a matter of socioeconomic fairness.
While anti-abortion activists are fighting to prevent taxpayer dollars from financing abortions, HR7 would not just end “taxpayer funding,” but also have significant consequences for both the tax code and the insurance industry, which could lead to private insurance no longer including termination of pregnancy. If passed, the bill would make the procedure less affordable, putting the operation out of reach for many lower class women across the country.
Adorned with a misleading title that insinuates that it will only affect taxpayer funding, the bill not only bans abortion coverage in Obamacare’s recent state-level insurance marketplace, but also extends restrictions into private insurance plans. HR7 would require small businesses offering their employees insurance plans covering abortion to pay additional taxes on their health benefits. Furthermore, it would alter the tax code by eliminating medical-expense deductions for termination of pregnancy except in instances of rape, incest, or life endangerment, thus giving the IRS the responsibility of “auditing” victims in order to prevent fraud. Giving this power to the IRS is unacceptable.
The Supreme Court used its legal authority to make decisions on both abortion and the Affordable Care Act. As long as abortion is legal and its associated policies are based on the principle of bodily autonomy, it should be included in medical care costs covered by insurance. The purpose of health insurance is to provide patients with security and to be available for a variety of unanticipated needs and emergencies. The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” places low-income women at a disadvantage. The bill is a clear economic barrier that threatens access to all abortions, including emergency procedures. The aim of the anti-abortion movement is to protect unborn lives, but this should not come at the sole expense of existing female lives in unfortunate economic conditions. If anti-abortion activists must use economics to deter women from getting abortions, clearly they are missing the meaning behind their own message.
