As most people know by now, health care passed the House, but the right wingers were successful in adding an amendment that goes far further than current law in restricting abortion services. The Stupak amendment threatens to derail the entire health care reform effort, but I think I may have come up with an idea on how to resolve the issue, so that the abortion controversy - which isn't really what the health care reform effort is about anyway - doesn't completely undermine health care reform.
So here's the idea:
Offer those who object to their tax dollars being used to pay for abortion services the opportunity to opt out.
What could be simpler?
It could be set up something like the little box you check on your Federal income tax form to pay $3 into the Presidential campaign fund, but work the opposite way. If you object to the federal funding of abortion, you would check a box on your health insurance application form (or some annual form regarding your insurance), and your portion of the amount that is anticipated for abortion funding annually would be subtracted from your annual premium.
The total amount likely to be spent on abortion services in a year would be fairly easy to calculate, as statistics on the overall number of abortions performed in the U.S. is readily available. The number of abortions annually occurring in the U.S.is actually quite low. The amount for the funding of such abortions as occur in a year, when divided by the number of U.S. citizens with health insurance who would not opt out would probably be something miniscule - perhaps roughly equivalent to the $3 for the Presidential campaign fund. And the amount would become even lower once we pass health care reform, as there would be a larger pool of people who are paying for health insurance.
This approach has the advantage of assuaging any real personal moral opposition to abortion services, while exposing those whose real agenda is to derail the health reform effort. How could anyone opposed to abortion complain about such a process? That is, they couldn't complain without being guilty of the very thing they themselves complain about so much - getting the government involved in personal health care decisions. I think that even those average citizens who aren't entirely opposed to abortion remaining legal, but still have qualms about the Federal government paying for it, would find such a proposal relatively unobjectionable. People would, after all, be given a choice. At any rate, it would make it harder for abortion opponents to complain, and give cover to any Blue Dogs who are personally opposed to abortion, or who come from extremely conservative districts in which the majority of their constituents are opposed.
Yeah, there might be some people who aren't really opposed to abortion services funding who might check the box just to save an additional $3 on their annual premium, but since the amount would be so low, it's unlikely there would be enough of them to disrupt the program in any way.
I think making the idea a part of the insurance process, rather than a check box on one's income tax form is a better idea, because it reduces the fungibility of the funding - or at least any perceptions of it. I also think that an opt-out is better than an opt-in, because it's primarily the abortion opponents who are up in arms, and this proposal would address their concerns in a very visible way when they sign up for insurance, which might help to reassure them. It would have the additional advantage of reminding them each year of the relatively low number of abortions in the U.S.
I've called both of my Senators' offices (Murray and Cantwell) and given them this idea; I'm hoping at least one of them will run with it. But maybe it would help for more people to call their reps and propose this idea, so I'm throwing my proposal out there for others to evaluate. It surely needs massaging, but I'm interested whether people think it might be a good compromise, and if it really might allow the Congress to get past the issue of abortion and back to the business of passing a good health care reform bill.
So, what do you think? Could this proposal work?