Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Oklahoma Abortion Laws: Social Conservatives Shoot Fiscal in Foot

3D Ultrasound
I've just posted at an article on Oklahoma's new anti-abortion laws. It may be published live later today, but here's the lead followed by my opinion, which is not in the BlogHer piece:
In what could be considered an excellent example of States Rights versus federal law that protects women's reproductive and civil rights, the Oklahoma legislature voted Tuesday to override Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's veto of two constraining abortion laws. One requires pregnant women to see the fetus in the womb and hear details about its development and appearance so the women will understand that they carry life, babies. The other law protects doctors from lawsuits if they fail to inform women of a fetal defect. (More at BlogHer)
I think the law that protects doctors from lawsuits shows how socially conservative Republicans, who seek to legislate "morality," shoot purely fiscal conservative Republicans, who don't want the government involved in the people's most intimate decisions, in the foot, perhaps more accurately, in their behinds. Simply, if a government passes a law that prevents you from being able to hold a doctor financially accountable for not informing you that your child will have a disability that requires costly care, then that government should be prepared to give you all the financial aid you require to care for that child. The state, having assisted in misinforming you, is as responsible as the physician.

Where is the concern for moral burden here? How can anyone who supports not informing the woman that she will have an additional debt far beyond the expenses of raising a completely healthy child not support the tax increases it will take to provide the care? If the mother/parents are fully informed and choose to have the baby, then they have knowingly chosen to accept the financial baggage. If they were purposefully not informed, then where is the choice there?

And of course, this discussion could take us back to how arguing against universal health care is generally morally repugnant. Parents who choose to have a disabled child should not be barred from receiving government assistance either. Why is it that some conservative pro-life advocates appear to despise the living?

No comments: