Let’s image that a man and woman decide to have unprotected
sex.
Is that a health issue or a bad decision?
Now, let’s imagine that this same man and woman become
pregnant because of their unprotected sex.
Is that a health issue or a biological possibility after
engaging in unprotected sex?
Finally, let’s imagine that this woman has decided that she
wants to terminate the pregnancy (for any number of reasons) but does not have
the resources to pay for the abortion.
Suddenly, lobbyists, politicians, women’s groups, and some
churches call this “dilemma” a “women’s health issue” that is the financial
responsibility of the federal government.
Let’s review:
1.
The government did not encourage or perform the
unprotected sex.
2.
The government has no control over the woman’s biological
results.
3.
The government did not make the decision that
the pregnancy was unwanted and should be terminated.
4.
The woman’s financial position was not
determined by the government.
Why, then, should the federal government be financially responsible
for the decisions of this woman?
How
does her inability to pay for an abortion make her desired abortion a “women’s
health issue”?
Isn’t this merely poor planning and a lack of financial
resources to pay for an item on her Wish List?
So, who should fund the abortion for this person?
Perhaps:
1.
The church groups, women’s groups and/or activists
who believe that it is a “community” issue.
2.
Planned Parenthood (for example) via a telethon
or Go-Fund-Me page type of approach.
3.
The woman’s parents, relatives, friends and “boyfriend.”
Why do some women demand that the government leaves their
bodies alone…unless it “requires” an abortion?
A “women’s health issue”…I don’t think so…
