Editorial Note: This is specific to U.S. politics.
Right now, the issue of abortion looms large in any consideration of whether or not the U.S. House of Representatives will pass the Senate’s “healthcare reform” bill, and thereby reorder the healthcare arrangements of much of the country. One might ask whether or not this is inappropriate: is a tangential issue dominating the discussion of larger and more vital questions? I argue that the answer is no.
Paying the Piper
There’s an old saying to the effect that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. Once any person or organization becomes the sole supplier of something, he or it has great latitude to set the conditions under which it will be delivered. One of the strongest arguments against the greater centralization of regulation, administration, and funding of healthcare (as seen in the Senate bill) is that the quality and availability of one’s healthcare will eventually be a political question, rather than a personal one.
Abortion
Few questions are more charged in American politics than that of abortion. It makes sense that, of all the political questions that would arise out of a more centralized healthcare system, abortion should come up first. The only slightly surprising thing is that this question has arisen before the centralization which gives rise to the dispute has even been enacted into law.
Some might find that fortunate.
Debate
If the Senate bill craters because of a dispute over abortion funding, it will seem entirely appropriate to me. Perhaps the greatest failing of that bill is the way it makes personal decisions the public’s business; if it fails because the public cannot even come to agreement on the first question to arise, it seems a lucky escape.
