BY MAYA RUPERT

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Now that it is looking increasingly inevitable that some sort of sweeping health care reform will be passed early next year, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and start looking for the next big fight on which we can all fixate.

Ah, the change a new year brings.

Turns out, we’re not going to have to look too far. While it is clear that health care will be reformed, the new battleground emerging is centering on precisely what that reform will look like. The public option is almost certainly out, the exchange is in, and abortion is shaping up to be the lightning-rod issue.

Pro-lifers are afraid that reform will change existing law and allow federal funding for abortions. Because both the House and Senate versions of the bill require almost everyone to be insured, and provide generous subsidies from federal money to make that possible, they argue that some of that federal money will be going toward premiums that will provide abortions.

 House and Senate Democrats have been bending over backwards trying to craft language that would keep this from happening.

But no matter how hard they try, and they’ve tried hard — the bill that will pass the Senate contains some truly tortured language that could force women seeking abortion care coverage into the onerous position of writing two separate checks, one for the bulk of their care and the other for the abortion care, to insure separation of funds — the pro-lifers aren’t satisfied.

And here’s the surprising part: I’m with the pro-lifers. I agree that it is likely impossible to create a bill from the current House and Senate versions that will ensure that no federal funds go toward funding abortions.

The segregation of funds will be artificial at best because money is fungible, so even if the subsidies from tax dollars go toward the non-abortion portion of the care, the subsidies will have facilitated the purchase of the abortion care.

But my bigger question is, why is it so important that no federal dollars go toward funding abortion?

I understand that it is a thorny issue and that many people do not support reproductive freedom of women. But I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. I don’t support farm subsidies for U.S. farmers that keep farmers in developing nations in abject poverty. Some days, I don’t support Congress.

But it is inconceivable to me that based on my objections, I can actually pick and choose where my tax dollars go — taxation doesn’t work the way charitable giving does. We don’t have the luxury of dictating the terms. And that’s because taxes aren’t charity; they are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

And sometimes other people in that society do things that we may disagree with, but the court charged with interpreting our Constitution has deemed abortion within their rights to do.

When that happens, the government has a responsibility to make sure that access to constitutionally protected procedures is not blocked by a lack of financial resources.

What better way to do that than to make federal funding available for those who need it?

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah gave an explanation for why objections to abortion occupy this privileged space in the discourse. During Senate debate of the health care bill, and particularly the added amendment that would prevent federal funding of abortion, Hatch asked a rhetorical question:

“Why should people of conscience be forced to participate in any aspect of abortion?”

People of conscience.  

I actually couldn’t believe it when I read it. As if those of us who support comprehensive reproductive health care for women lack a conscience. As if those of us who place a value on the health and safety of women and children do so without a moral mandate.

Support for reproductive choice is rooted in morality, just like the objections of those who oppose it. We believe that the bodily integrity of women is important. We believe women should be given freedom to decide when they will begin their families. We believe that every child should come into this world feeling loved, cared for, and wanted.

And those who disagree are free to do so, but they cannot claim entitlement to a higher moral plane as they do. Women deserve a lot better than the assault on reproductive freedom in both versions of the health care reform bill.

I listened to my conscience, and that’s what it told me. 

Maya Rupert is an attorney in downtown Los Angeles. She has previously contributed to the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as other publications. Her column explores issues of race, gender, and politics and appears in the L.A. Watts Times regularly. She can be reached at maya.rupert@gmail.com.