In its Thursday editorial, the New York Times laid out a case for a universal health care plan to pay for abortions, regardless of whether the abortion would save the pregnant woman’s life.
The Times, often criticized by the Right for having a Liberal bias, said that, “Democrats who support the compromise must find a way to prevent it from being used later to go after other tax subsidies and thus further deny Americans’ rights to make their own health-care decisions.”
This editorial is interesting in two ways. First, abortion most of the time is not a medical procedure per quo. Pregnancy is not a disease or an injury or something necessitating an operation, such as a facial reconstructive operation for a burn victim. It is a choice the woman makes to end a pregnancy than in most cases is not life-threatening or a “condition.” It’s the creation of life.
The diction the Times uses in calling it a health-care decision makes it seem like going in to a doctor to treat a problem with your health.
Second, in a roundabout way, this column is a little bit conservative. While government-funded health care expands the role of the feds, government denying abortion is too liberal for Liberals. It’s a private decision that government should not intervene in.
But if they expect the public to fund health care, for the government to ensure that people get health care, than that same government has the right to affirm or to deny what its nation-wide insurance plan covers. Abortion is not health care and government is not obligated to kill babies for the sake of convenience.
The purpose of medicine is to save lives, not terminate them.


