Monday, November 09, 2009

Funding Abortions, Wars and Churches

By Mike Dorf

Now that the House has approved the Stupak Amendment--which forbids health insurance plans that will receive federal funding under the reformed American health care system from covering abortions--it's worth reflecting on why, exactly, this sort of legislative provision is considered permissible even by an otherwise (mostly) pro-choice country.  The core of the argument goes like this: The law permits abortion on grounds of personal choice, but many people regard abortion as immoral, and they should not be made to subsidize conduct they regard as immoral.  That is, more or less, the principle on which rest the Supreme Court decisions allowing rather severe restrictions on government funding for abortion.  And it is also the principle one typically hears in public debate.

To be sure, the principle is often invoked by people who would go much further.  Most of the legislators who oppose government funding of abortion would also favor making abortion illegal were constitutional doctrine not (currently) an obstacle to that approach.  Congressman Stupak himself, for example, is "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice-but-anti-subsidization."  But let's put that point aside.  It is possible to think that some activities ought to be a matter of choice but that others shouldn't have to subsidize them.  The government cannot forbid bumper stickers proclaiming that "smoking is cool," but it can choose to subsidize anti-smoking rather than pro-smoking speech. And quite rightly so.

Is selective subsidization a compelling principle of politics more generally?  Maybe not.  Certainly there is no general rule that the government may not spend money on anything that a substantial number of people oppose.  Quakers are required to pay taxes that support wars.  Vegans are required to pay taxes that subsidize factory farming.  And so on.  Of course, in these cases, the majority thinks that the subsidy does not go to immoral activity, regarding wars as (at least sometimes) justified and animal agriculture as morally neutral to beneficial.  In the case of abortion, what does the majority of the House think?  As noted in the previous paragraph, I suspect that most of the House members who voted for the Stupak Amendment think abortion is immoral.  I also suspect that at least some of the supporters think that, whatever the right choice of any particular woman deciding whether to have an abortion, people who are morally opposed to abortion shouldn't have to support it, but because of the impracticality of rebating tax funds to abortion opponents only, the government simply shouldn't subsidize abortion at all.

But if that is the middle ground here--between legal abortion with government funding and illegal abortion--then there is a substantial difficulty: We do not ordinarily regard everything that recipients of public funds do with those funds as implicating the public in their conduct.  The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is noteworthy in this regard.  Although the government could not appropriate funds directly to subsidize various sectarian activities, in a variety of contexts, the Court has upheld programs that appropriate general funds which individuals can then choose to use for partly religious purposes.  This principle is sound, and was unanimously adopted by liberals and conservatives alike in the Witters case in 1986--holding that there was no Establishment Clause violation when a blind student sought to use vocational services at a sectarian Bible College for ministerial training.  Later cases exposed rifts over the extent and scope of the principle but its core is easy to defend: The student, not the government, directed funds to the Bible College.

Likewise with respect to health care, there would seem to be a substantial difference between, on one hand, direct government funding of stand-alone abortion clinics, and, on the other hand, government's failure to re-write health insurance policies of all persons who receive any government subsidy so as to remove abortion coverage from those policies. The Stupak Amendment takes aim at the latter sort of subsidy.  It treats a private choice to have an abortion that is covered largely out of the woman's premiums to her insurer as implicating all taxpayers, no matter how small the government subsidy is relative to those premiums.  That looks a lot like, to use a much-abused phrase, a government takeover of health care.

11 comments:

Anonymous Blogger said...

Is this a libertarian objection to the Stupak Amendment?

Michael C. Dorf said...

AB: Yes, obviously. Are you suggesting that it is somehow logically inconsistent to argue that (1) the libertarian objection to having to buy health insurance or pay a tax is weak, while simultaneously maintaining that (2) it is an unwarranted infringement on liberty for the government effectively to compel thousands of women to remain pregnant and bear children against their will? If so, you are mistaken. One need not be a thoroughgoing libertarian to think that some infringements on liberty are unwarranted. Indeed, that was rather obviously a premise of my earlier posts. If I thought that libertarian objections to restrictions on liberty were always meritless, I would have simply said that, rather than engaging with the substance of the particular objections that had been made to the individual mandate.

Anonymous Blogger said...

Prof. Dorf:

I did not intend to imply you have been logically inconsistent. (All your libertarian-centric analysis of the health care debate has been fascinating, illuminating, and refreshing.)

But I am unsure why your analysis of an affirmative duty to use private funds to buy healthcare does not apply to the Stupak amendment. You argued that affirmative duties can be less bad than prohibitions, which are in many cases unobjectionable. The Stupak amendment can be restyled as an affirmative duty to use private funds to finance abortions. What makes the Stupak amendment less warranted than an affirmative duty to use private funds to purchase affordable healthcare if you don't want any?

feri said...

nice article

feri said...

nice article

Michael C. Dorf said...

AB: Ah, now I get it. Let me see whether I can put your point as strongly as possible: The burden of the individual mandate (IM) is at bottom simply a monetary burden; the same is true of the Stupak Amendment (SA). Just as under the IM it's still possible for someone not to get health care if he wants to avoid health care, so under the SA, it's still possible for a woman who wants an abortion to get an abortion--either by paying for one a la carte or by having purchased a supplemental insurance plan in advance.

My objection, of course, is that, at the margin, some women will be unable to afford to pay for such abortions, but then, at the margins some people subject to the IM will be unable to pay for whatever else it is that they need or want (including abortions) in virtue of the fact that they have had to pay a tax or to purchase unwanted health insurance. Stated in that way, the SA does look no worse than the IM.

Nonetheless, I still think it is substantially worse because in the SA Congress has targeted a specific form of liberty--the right to choose whether to have an abortion--for discouragement. By contrast, the IM is neutral with respect to the choices people make--except that it is not neutral with respect to people's choices about whether to have health insurance coverage in the first place. It discourages choices to forego health insurance.

So, to end more or less where I started in my last comment, my argument that the SA is worse than the IM rests on the supposition that it is more intrusive for the government to interfere (through financial incentives and coercion) with the private decision to seek an abortion than to interfere (through financial incentives and coercion) with the private decision to forego health insurance.

Ross said...

I wonder if it is meaningful in this case to distinguish between targeting a liberty for discouragement and specifying one for non-encouragement.

As I understand it, abortions are not currently federally funded. The Stupak Amendment would maintain the status quo in that regard. It does however, stand as an island of non-encouragement in a sea of health care encouragement.

I take it that the proponents of this view support it by contending that while other coverage is intended to alleviate illness and promote health, funding for abortions is akin to funding elective (non-strictly-health-related) procedures. One reason it would not be covered, then, is precisely because it is personal to the patient and not medically indicated like other interventions.

Thus, they would argue, it does not make sense to argue that the government is "interfering" in a woman's choice to have an abortion because this bill leaves that choice at rest -- precisely as it is now -- with no authority to direct government funds to support it.

Len said...

Maybe this is not an exact analogy but compare the political allignment on the Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill with that from the Franken amendment to the Military spending bill a few weeks ago. In both cases liberals wished to use govenment spending policy to further a political goal, in one case to provide money to health care providers to provide abortions to patients, and in the other case to ensure that women employed by govenment contractors and who were raped on the job would be allowed to sue employers in court and not be forced into arbitration as their only remedy.

The reasons for the Republican opposition to the Franken amendment was not totally clear but my two senators told me they were against it because the feds should not interfere in employer-employer contractual relationships. Conservatives say government should not interfere with private contracts. Except, as you point out here, when it should. I think you are exactly right that there are some medical decisions, especially with regard to reropduction and end of life services, that conservatives feel the government should completly control.

What is really shockiing to me, and what prompetd this post, is that it appears the conservative position with regard to federal funding is rape is OK but abortions are not.

狗熊克星 said...

有一位越南新娘在程式設計俱樂部發包一個案子結果有一個大陸新娘說他要接他會寫程式這幾個外籍新娘算是精英中的精英他們會寫C語言及組合語言他善長寫php的語言真是令人大開眼界。阿美是大陸新娘她和老公非常的恩愛她說嫁來台灣當大陸新娘是她這輩子最快樂的事她的越南新娘朋友小花最近發福了為什麼越南新娘會發福呢因為她過的很幸福這些外籍新娘都很滿足目前生活像台的比例越來越高而也相對的提高。

孝順公婆是越南新娘的美德她們愛小孩又顧家且越南新娘都長的很美,她們在外籍新娘中算是最美麗的一群陳君曼是大陸新娘嫁來台中已有十年了她的大陸新娘朋友阿花養了一隻非洲兔超可愛的養了一年黃金獵犬有玩渡過快樂的一天。雖然今年是姑鸞年但是根據統計娶大陸新娘的人數大幅上升比過去上升一成的比例,由於外籍新娘一般來說都非常的乖巧聽話且都有一雙巧手像越南新娘個個都非常的漂亮都會說台語嫁過來和我們有一種特別的親切感,大多都是健康的黑色皮膚且刻克耐勞對於做家事照顧公婆外籍新娘都非常的有耐心,單身男士朋友們心動嗎?幸福是掌握在自已的手中,歡迎來電詢問大陸新娘結婚的活動行程。

您想娶到一位勤勞、甜美、漂亮、不愛慕虛榮的美嬌娘,做為您終身伴侶?我們提供大陸新娘,越南新娘,等誼服務、交友與協助大陸新娘來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理等,的其它國家的外籍新娘。本網站為直營網站,誠信負責,外籍新娘合法保證,全省服務,會依照您喜歡與適合的對象,來安排聯誼認識,避免婚姻變成商品買賣行為,因為『婚姻』是一輩子的終身大事。想娶到一位漂亮、不愛慕虛榮、勤勞、甜美的美嬌娘,做為您的老婆嗎?我們提供越南新娘,大陸新娘,等誼服務、交友與協助來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理等,的其它國家的外籍新娘。本網站為越南新娘的直營網站,合法保證、誠信負責,全台灣都有配合的合法協會人員,會依照您喜歡的對象來安排約會相親,我們專門協助辦理大陸新娘,越南新娘以及外籍新娘的聯誼旅遊。

sarah said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://grantfoundation.net

برامج said...

i'll count in this as my my great source at court
تقنية