Last week, an article on this site was published detailing the characteristics of Yale's Health policy, specifically pointing out an issue with one key aspect of it: the health plan allows for paid abortions. I want to extend this debate because the issue is one unlike many others – it deals with (potential, to some) human life, and thus I think the argument should be constant, and never easy. I find abortion a bit uneasy at times, but I understand the sides of both, and so I wanted to form a response to this article to both uphold my principle of discussing the issue, but to also address my concerns with the article.
The first determinable contention with Yale Health (and not a personal gripe) that the author poses is that the answers that Yale provides for the question “I have a positive home pregnancy test. What should I do?” includes an option for abortion. I always have a bit of an issue with contextual altering and with biased selection, and the author only includes the answer of Yale’s that includes abortion. What she does not include is that it is the third recommendation beneath two other answers, with those referring to maintaining the pregnancy. Yale Health is geared towards helping the patient do what he or she thinks is best for themselves, and towards providing the tools for him or her to gain a quality life. They are not subtly pushing people towards abortion (which will come up later in another contention) as the author would imply by omitting the other answers.
A little before, she also mentions begrudgingly that Yale offers quite a bit of condoms, that they are even “shoving” them. I would also note that Yale Health also offers a good amount of contraceptives, including birth control pills and condoms. There obviously is a good amount of bulwark against pregnancy, but these methods still aren’t a sure guarantee (by tiny decimal points, to be frank), and people make mistakes. This doesn’t mean the price of potentially ruining one’s envisioned life should be fair either, given we all do some boneheaded things.
The author then states that Yale will pay for your abortion, and even multiple, if one wishes to be a carousel of misfortune, and then includes the reader by asking if “they’re uncomfortable yet,” presumably to mirror her disgust. This is where some of the argument becomes murky, but treatment options should not be decided by whether or not some of the contributors are disgusted over it. Let us discuss gender reassignment surgeries. These are, without a doubt, considered by some people to be a myriad of labels; some words like “blasphemous” or “abominable” or “inspiring” can be found in the air when discussing this subject. The meat of the situation is that for patients who require this procedure, their means to a life with the correct identity and one where they can pursue happiness hinges on that operation (thanks Obamacare for setting a national precedent, and sorry that a bit of my favor leaks through). To deny people an operation that only affects them, and desperately affects their ability to be themselves and healthy (the point of medicine) over whether someone is offended or disgusted, that itself is blasphemous to a different system. I, too, find myself incredibly uncomfortable with abortion much of the time, but this does not give me supreme authority on whether or not it is right.
And so this opens a notion I wish to delineate: the service of health insurance. Insurance is not supplemented by one person (some more than others, but that’s not necessary here). One person cannot pay for their medical expenses alone, so a bunch of people contribute resources to an insurance agency. So when someone has a medical emergency, then they draw money from the communal fund and they get the treatment they need. The issue we have here is that the author thinks that because she does not agree with another’s treatment, her funds should not go to it. This not only violates the principle of the service, but is also hypocritical. Surely the author at one point will need aid from the insurance company at some point in time, and will need to draw funds. The thing is, all sorts of people contribute to that fund, including people who got abortions, and all sorts of people who else she might disagree with on their health choices. I’m sure those people aren’t too happy that their money goes to helping someone who actively works against their health issues, but they do it anyway, because insurance isn’t about helping those you agree with, it’s about helping people.
The following concern the author demonstrates is that Yale Health is seemingly “partnered” with Planned Parenthood, and this of course wraps in the recent controversy with Planned Parenthood "harvesting" (harvesting, which means to gather crops; who doesn't love the false imagery that harvesting readily implies, where humans are raised and devoured like corn) fetal organs.
To address the perception that Yale Health is “partnered” with Planned Parenthood, they’re not. I did a simple google search, and nothing even resembling an official partnership surfaced. What most likely occurs is that Yale Health does not have the facilities to perform abortions or don’t have personnel for it, so they instead refer those wishing to obtain abortions to nearby clinics where they can do so, and what place are most people familiar with when it comes to abortions? Planned Parenthood. Yale also refers students to other nearby clinics that can perform abortions if they wish, according to the fifth paragraph of this Yale Daily News article. To reiterate, Yale most likely (I subscribe anything a bit to chance; I’m not omniscient, as much as I would like to be) does not profit from sending people to Planned Parenthood, but instead just sends them to where they are familiar, and then pay for it.
To concur, I would also like to dedicate a paragraph discussing the harvesting of fetal organs. Whether or not they are doing it is still a bit up in the air, even with the recent -- and heavily edited I might add – videos, there is nothing definite. The government should instigate some level of investigation to make sure Planned Parenthood isn’t pressuring women into abortion for pecuniary reasons, but whether or not fetal organ harvesting is entirely immoral, I’m not decided yet. Consider this: if I die, and my organs are “harvested,” and I manage to save lives due to my death, is this morally apprehensible? If I die and my body is donated to science, is there a moral grayness here? Will there be picket signs and murdered doctors in my wake? If so, I would be quite honored that I meant so much, aside from the murder. With stem cells and genetic research, we have the potential to save millions of lives, and fetal organs do just that – provide great realms of research and understanding. The pack of cells, the fetus, the baby is already dead/disabled/non-functioning (whatever word suits your sense of morbidity, attachment, and garishness), so why not use it for the greater good instead of letting it seep into the Earth in vain (or I suppose to feed our next generation of corn). Whether or not it is immoral, I don’t know, but I surely know it is not definite yet.
The other contention the author has is, in my opinion, a valid one. Yale Health is supposed to cover health issues, and I do believe that eye care, dental (which was a primary killer of people for a long time), and immunizations all lie under the category of “health issues.” Nevertheless, there is not much debatable here, so I’ll move on.
Another claim from the author proceeds, and I agree with this one as well. Don’t buy any service or good without reading into it first, although this seems a bit obvious and didactic.
Abortion is a tricky and almost ineffable issue. I’m sure in reading to this point, one has this image of me being confrontational, cantankerous and probably a bit snarky, but I share much of the sentiments my colleague possesses. I can see both sides – I can see the lost world that passes by in parallel to ours, a realm of boys and girls, ones who would have loved and lived our world like we have, ones who could have brought good and revelry to us and those around us. I can also see a good many women terrified, in poverty and dire circumstances, beating themselves over a silly mistake borne in wanting to escape their world and to just be human in an intimate moment. I can see women terrified that their child will be victims like they were to a world that is all too ready to dole out painful destinies to the new and innocent, to the poor. It’s not an easy answer, and I do think abortions should be limited, and should always be a difficult discussion, but I don’t think it should be entirely removed either. It's similar to why I don't believe in the death penalty: I'm not God, I'm not omniscient, and I do not know Death and the future beyond the first glance in the looking glass. It’s just one of those quandaries to be passed down and considered.
