Abortion in Health Package
Michael Kinsley’s argument to keep abortion separate from health reform lacks the logical depth he normally shows (Column Left, May 26). He says anyone who thinks that abortion is murder can opt out if she wants to. But women always have that right; what pro-lifers want is to prevent other female citizens from exercising their own moral judgment.
Kinsley also argues, unconvincingly, that moral objections to war differ from moral objections to taxes that subsidize abortion because war supposedly serves the general good. Abortion, like war, is an admittedly repugnant procedure deemed necessary by the cold realities of a crowded planet. Both of these procedures can be abused; neither should be taken lightly. But both can also serve the social good. A drug-addicted woman, for example, would be doing a greater kindness by terminating her pregnancy than by presenting society with a deformed, un-adoptable baby to support. Similarly, keeping the population down has social benefits for the entire planet.
The small number of the passionate partisans on either side is irrelevant to the concepts of equal justice and health care needs. Admittedly, right-to-lifers deserve the right to choose. But they should not impose their choice on others, especially not when they discriminate against poor women.
H. H. GORDON
Bakersfield
* I want to applaud Kinsley for revealing the hypocrisy of the “pro-choice” movement. Pro-lifers must not be forced to pay, through taxes, for the murder of the unborn. The pro-choice movement seeks not to promote “choice,” but to extinguish all alternative options from which to “choose.”
The rush to ensure that abortions are among the guaranteed benefits in President Clinton’s health care package is another example of the deterioration of one of our basic rights. That is, the right against government interference into our moral principles.
Wake up, America! The choices in our “democracy” are dwindling fast.
TOM PENA
El Segundo
* Great article. I’m so glad Kinsley understands so intimately what it is like for a woman facing the choice of abortion. It is also wonderful that he has come to the conclusion that cost is not an issue when making this decision. As he stated, “Even a poor woman often can scrape together $250.” Of course she could--maybe by prostituting a few nights. Why not? She’s already pregnant! If cost were not an issue, perhaps Kinsley ought to explain to me why poorer communities have more children than affluent communities.
I am left wondering if Kinsley believes women become pregnant all by themselves--where is there any acknowledgment of male responsibility in all this?
PAMELA M. WAINIO
Los Angeles
* Some people object to blood transfusions. Some people object to birth control. Some people object to genetic engineering. Is Kinsley proposing that we provide ourselves with medical coverage that looks like Swiss cheese, or are only pregnant women to be targeted?
JACKIE HYMAN
Brea