The Gothic Times

Issue date: 12/15/09 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: Abdoulaye Camara/Gothic Times

It was the fall of 2006 when I entered New Jersey City University as a na've and persuadable college freshman; nevertheless, I possessed firm convictions, one of which inevitably surfaced in my Contemporary Moral Issues class, wherein we explored several ethical subjects, their controversies and their possible effects on societies.

Today, the debate still rages over the subject of abortion, as evidenced in the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives health care reform bill, HR 3962.

The amendment, primarily sponsored by Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), states, "no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except when a woman's life is in danger or when the pregnancy follows from rape or incest.

By definition, to amend something involves a revision, which, in legislation, makes something more neutral, precise and informed. The Stupak amendment, which passed 240 to 194 in the House, certainly would appease middle-of-the-road, pro-life democrats. But conservative Republicans, who support privatized healthcare and insurance plans, correctly see it as cunning trickery by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and liberal leaders on Capitol Hill.

Conservative Republicans see the Stupak amendment as a way to swindle unsuspecting conservative members of Congress into endorsing the Democratic version of health care reform.

As a conservative, I oppose both abortion and HR 3962, its stated purpose is "[t]o provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending…"

In order to implement a bigger health care plan, however, the government must raise taxes and spend more, as is the case in more socialized countries around the world, thereby invalidating and contradicting the claim pushed by Democratic leaders that expanding health care could cut costs.

I am not arguing that our current system is perfect, but that it's preferable.

Yes, it is expensive, but it's exceptional. If, god-forbid, a pandemic spread throughout the classrooms of NJCU, every student would have access to immediate treatment at nearby hospitals.

Because the governments in socialized countries pay for healthcare, time in the doctor's office must be rationed, causing throngs of people to impatiently wait for needed checkups, prescriptions, and medical advice. In America, our competitive system keeps health care prices in check and doctors readily available.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools