Why pro-life advocates should favor universal healthcare


#1

Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:“Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions – a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.”


#2

Universal healthcare is good. The sad thing is many secular governments see abortion as healthcare and therefore provide is as part of it. I live in Canada and have been the beneficiary of universal healthcare. Both my kids were delivered via c-section and one of my kids were born with intestinal malrotation that necessitated surgery. In total I spent like 150-200 dollars between those three stays in the hospital. All that money is for the ridiculous parking fees they charge us.

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a “choice” not a “necessity”.


#3

I hope and pray the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare so Congress can start over and produce a better healthcare plan.

If the Canadian model is so good, why do so many wealthy Canadians come to the states for their serious health problems? Just asking.


#4

I personally disagree with this article. Making condoms, the pill, and the morning after pill more accessible through free healthcare may reduce the number of later term abortions, but these things are still sinful and are never morally permissable. The church makes it very clear that supporting an immoral action is never allowable even if there may be positive consequences that follow…

The only way to fix the abortion problem is to start properly catechizing people and bringing them into the faith. We need to bring back the concept of sin in our society. We need to teach people what is moral and what is immoral and public healthcare can never do that (it can only mask the larger problem).

I agree with you there Jim, the Canadian model certainly has deficiencies. The system has some proficiencies as well, but given the amount of money that the Canadian taxpayer puts into healthcare (which is enormous) it really is performing quite poorly compared to many other systems around the world. Our system also funds elective surgery such as abortion and sex changes which are both extremely immoral… :frowning:


#5

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:2, topic:288223"]

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a "choice" not a "necessity".

[/quote]

Well played. :thumbsup:


#6

Let’s apply some economic theory here.

One of the purposes of universal healthcare is to allow everyone to more freely access a doctor. Lower the cost, you increase the participation. More patients for the same doctors.

I do not believe that the bill provides a single additional doctor, nurse, technician, hospital or clinic.

Rationing of healthcare must follow. Waiting times will increase.


#7

Not because they can’t be fixed/cured/helped in Canada, but because they don’t want to wait a couple of months.


#8

Eight billion dollars of ONE YEAR of Obamacare fees collected by our favorite jack-booted thugs, the IRS, will net eight billion dollars. Eight billion dollars divided by $200,000 per student in medical school tuition, if doled out as free grants, can net 40,000/forty-thousand new doctors. Anybody up for supply-side medical economics? What if we dumped our cash into new doctors, lots of 'em? Or give 1/2 free grants to med school and get 80,000 new doctors funded in one year. PS The IRS secretly hates the thought of becoming Obamacare’s collection agency and hammering households who don’t fork over the projected $700 per household member; eating up those economy-bumping refunds and burdening those who are already under water on their tax payments.


#9

Pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates should all support universal health care because it is good for people to have easy access to good health care no matter what their wealth. It should not be supported as a tactic aimed at raising or lowering the number of abortions.


#10

[quote="Viki63, post:1, topic:288223"]
Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

[/quote]

"UHC" as a concept, probably yes. In relation to our current monstrosity of a debt-producing, Church-crushing bit of tyranny - no.


#11

No it’s not. It’s a horrible, socialist idea. One thing we’ve learned in the U.S is that the feds are the worst managers of anything. The more they encroach, the worse it gets.


#12

[quote="reconman, post:11, topic:288223"]
No it's not. It's a horrible, socialist idea. One thing we've learned in the U.S is that the feds are the worst managers of anything. The more they encroach, the worse it gets.

[/quote]

I am in Canada and I know it is great.


#13

[quote="ConstantineTG, post:12, topic:288223"]
I am in Canada and I know it is great.

[/quote]

Good for you. Keep it there.


#14

I don’t think you understand the article. Abortions are not reduced by making condoms, pills and morning after pills more accessible, but by removing the financial strain on pregnant women, who are much more likely to carry their babies to term if they don’t face astronomical health care bills doing so, and can be assured of healthcare for their children after they are born.
It’s true that we need to catechize people correctly and spread the faith, but meanwhile, we can reduce the number of abortions by expanding and improving Medicare.


#15

[quote="po18guy, post:6, topic:288223"]
Let's apply some economic theory here.

One of the purposes of universal healthcare is to allow everyone to more freely access a doctor. Lower the cost, you increase the participation. More patients for the same doctors.

I do not believe that the bill provides a single additional doctor, nurse, technician, hospital or clinic.

Rationing of healthcare must follow. Waiting times will increase.

[/quote]

You are forgetting that if we dump health insurance companies, who do not add anything at all to healthcare, we cut out costs of advertisement, administration, etc - estimated to be one-third of healthcare costs.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.


#16

[quote="Viki63, post:1, topic:288223"]
Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

[/quote]

Corelation does not prove causation. It may be that UHC reduces the number of abortions, it may not.

One thing about those other countries is that they tend to have lower rates of sexual activity, and teens generally wait til they are older to start having sex. I would suggest that this has more effect than does the presence or absence of UHC, because there is a direct corelation already established between sexual activity and pregnancy.


#17

[quote="Viki63, post:1, topic:288223"]
Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

[/quote]

This article is saying that the reason for lower abortion rate than in America in certain countries is because of free access to contraception?

I do not think the article is taking in to consideration cultural aspects. Japan has a very traditional society when it comes to family, so abortion is likely to be lower than in solemn countries where the family is held in such esteem. Also according to wikipedia, 'The official Japanese government statistics on abortion however can not be considered as very accurate since physicians tend to underreport the number of abortions they perform as a way of avoiding income tax payments (Coleman 1991) and because of social pressures to protect women’s confidentiality, especially that of young women who are junior high or high school students.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan

Sweden had the same abortion rate as America in 2009 at 20.8:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden

Some of the UN data in the article you linked is inaccurate.

The study claims the abortion rate is lower in

Show me the evidence, the studies that show that more contraception reduces abortion?

Study by Centers for Disease Control data, shows a clear link between increase in STDs and birth control:

issues4life.org/pdfs/20101119sexedadvocatesignoretherelationshipbetweenbirthcontrolabortionandstds.pdf

If contraception increases sexual activity that means more people are having sex and that means that more people will get pregnant because contraception is far from full proof, it has failure rates, 15% for condoms, 8% for the birth control pill.

Between 1995 and 2001 in Sweden abortion rate fore teens grew 32% in a time when oral contraceptions, cheap condoms, and over the counter emergency contraception:

10 year study in Spain reported to have found:

[C]ontraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.

Spain has a single-payer health care system.

National Review reported that 'out of 23 studies on the effects of increased access to ECs, not one study could show a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.'

Research arm of Planned Parenthood the Guttmacher Institute showed a simultaneous increase in contraception use and teen abortion rate in the US, Denmark, Cuba, Singapore, the Netherlands, and South Korea.

Guttmacher says 55%-60% of women getting an abortion are on contraception.

Sex ed program in Scotland over three years, scientists discovered it did not delay intercourse improve use of contraceptives or reduce pregnancies or abortions. The government decided to continue the program because students reported feeling less regret about the first time they slept with their most recent partner.

bmj.com/content/334/7585/133.full

M. Henderson, et al., “Impact of a Theoretically Based Sex Education Programme (SHARE) Delivered by Teachers on NHS Registered Conceptions and Terminations: Final Results of Cluster Randomised Trial,” British Medical Journal (November 21, 2006), 4.

bmj.com/content/334/7585/133.full

In England in 1999 the government put 15 million pounds in to sex education, Students where offered condoms, morning after pills, while having 'safe sex education' in schools. In March 2004 they found that STD rates had gone up 64%, teens pregnancies where also up, some areas experience 34% overall leap. The greatest increases where in areas where the program had been implemented.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456789/Teen-pregnancies-increase-after-sex-education-classes.html

Britain has National health service.

A study showed that 3 our of 4 college men did not use condoms, despite the fact that over 80% had received sex education.

Richard Crosby, et al., “Condom Use Errors and Problems Among College Men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29 (2002), 552–57.

tiny.cc/49np5

kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/STDSep2002.pdf

Planned Parenthood’s Frederick S. Jaffe, in Abortion Politics, says '.. even if everyone were to practice contraception, and use the most effective medically prescribed methods, there would still be a very large number of unwanted pregnancies.'

1995 Alfred Kinsey said, 'At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.'

British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: '.. women.. have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.'

Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts who was former director of Planned Parenthood of England, an abortinist and international promoter of contraception said in 1976 and apparently as early as 1973) quoted in 'Sex and Social Engineering' by Valerie Riches, 'As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate..'

In Abortion, he said, '.. those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion..'


#18

But universal health care does not always lead to ‘easy access to good health care.’ The countries that have universal health care typically have long waiting lists, rationing of treatment, different parts of the country having certain drugs and other parts of the country that drug isn’t available. Just look at Britain:

telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9331485/Melanoma-drug-too-expensive-for-NHS.html

guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/02/cancer-drug-too-expensive-nhs

Doctors saying treatment has to be rationed for the NHS to cope:

guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/27/nhs-treatment-rationing-gp-warning


#19

[quote="Viki63, post:1, topic:288223"]
Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

[/quote]

This article is saying that the reason for lower abortion rate than in America in certain countries is because of free access to contraception?

Is the article is taking in to consideration cultural aspects. Japan has a very traditional society when it comes to family, so abortion may be likely to be lower than in some countries where the family is not held in such esteem because perhaps there is less sex out of marriage?

According to wikipedia, 'The official Japanese government statistics on abortion however can not be considered as very accurate since physicians tend to underreport the number of abortions they perform as a way of avoiding income tax payments (Coleman 1991) and because of social pressures to protect women’s confidentiality, especially that of young women who are junior high or high school students.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Japan

Sweden had the same abortion rate as America in 2009 at 20.8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden

The abortion rate in Denmark in 2010 was 20.2, not 14.3 which the UN claims

johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-denmark.html

Abortion rate for Germany 14.0, not 7.8 which the UN claims

johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-frgermany.html

Britain had an abortion rate of 17.5 in 2011 not 17.0 which the UN claims

independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/abortion-rates-continue-to-rise-7800451.html

US had an abortion rate of 19.6 in 2011 not 20.8 which the UN claims

usatoday.com/yourlife/2011-01-11-abortion11_ST_N.htm

Some of the UN data in the article you linked is inaccurate.

Show me the evidence, the studies that show that more contraception reduces abortion?

Study by Centers for Disease Control data, shows a clear link between increase in STDs and birth control:

issues4life.org/pdfs/20101119sexedadvocatesignoretherelationshipbetweenbirthcontrolabortionandstds.pdf

If contraception increases sexual activity that means more people are having sex and that means that more people will get pregnant because contraception is far from full proof, it has failure rates, 15% for condoms, 8% for the birth control pill.

Between 1995 and 2001 in Sweden abortion rate fore teens grew 32% in a time when oral contraceptions, cheap condoms, and over the counter emergency contraception:

10 year study in Spain reported to have found:

[C]ontraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.

Spain has a single-payer health care system.

National Review reported that 'out of 23 studies on the effects of increased access to ECs, not one study could show a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.'

Research arm of Planned Parenthood the Guttmacher Institute showed a simultaneous increase in contraception use and teen abortion rate in the US, Denmark, Cuba, Singapore, the Netherlands, and South Korea.

Guttmacher says 55%-60% of women getting an abortion are on contraception.

Sex ed program in Scotland over three years, scientists discovered it did not delay intercourse improve use of contraceptives or reduce pregnancies or abortions. The government decided to continue the program because students reported feeling less regret about the first time they slept with their most recent partner.

bmj.com/content/334/7585/133.full

M. Henderson, et al., “Impact of a Theoretically Based Sex Education Programme (SHARE) Delivered by Teachers on NHS Registered Conceptions and Terminations: Final Results of Cluster Randomised Trial,” British Medical Journal (November 21, 2006), 4.

bmj.com/content/334/7585/133.full

In England in 1999 the government put 15 million pounds in to sex education, Students where offered condoms, morning after pills, while having 'safe sex education' in schools. In March 2004 they found that STD rates had gone up 64%, teens pregnancies where also up, some areas experience 34% overall leap. The greatest increases where in areas where the program had been implemented.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456789/Teen-pregnancies-increase-after-sex-education-classes.html

Britain has National health service.

A study showed that 3 our of 4 college men did not use condoms, despite the fact that over 80% had received sex education.

Richard Crosby, et al., “Condom Use Errors and Problems Among College Men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29 (2002), 552–57.

tiny.cc/49np5

kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/STDSep2002.pdf

Planned Parenthood’s Frederick S. Jaffe, in Abortion Politics, says '.. even if everyone were to practice contraception, and use the most effective medically prescribed methods, there would still be a very large number of unwanted pregnancies.'

1995 Alfred Kinsey said, 'At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.'

British Abortionist Judith Bury, Brook Advisory Centres, 1981: '.. women.. have come to request [abortions] when contraception fails. There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision [availability] of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.'

Abortionist and international contraception promoter Malcolm Potts who was former director of Planned Parenthood of England, an abortinist and international promoter of contraception said in 1976 and apparently as early as 1973) quoted in 'Sex and Social Engineering' by Valerie Riches, 'As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate..'

In Abortion, he said, '.. those who use contraception are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion..'


#20

Didn’t read the article, but I agree that universal health care is good. As long as it doesn’t fund abortions and contraception, etc.:slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.