Stupak Amendment Demonstrates the Hypocrisy of Anti-abortion Politicians

“SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING

a) In General.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”[Emphasis mine]

The text above, from the first paragraph of the so-called Stupak Amendment to the healthcare reform bill that passed the House last Saturday, demonstrates the moral elasticity of the political wing of anti-abortion forces.

If, as anti-abortion activists tell us, life begins at conception, and all human organisms enjoy the inalienable right to life, why do we make exceptions based on the circumstances under which that life came into existence?

The simple answer is, of course, political expediency. Anti-abortion politicos believe—probably correctly—that no bill containing language prohibiting all abortions could garner enough support to pass.

This stance, while politically astute, belies the principles many of the same anti-abortion activists claim when they say they could not, in good conscience, support any federal healthcare reform bill that included provisions for abortion, no matter how much such a bill would improve access to healthcare for millions of Americans.

The Stupak Amendment baldly proclaims that, for these same activists, the  need to punish women for having consensual sex outweighs the importance of protecting all human life. If conception occurs, the product merits protection if it is the consequence of a woman’s choice, regardless of her feelings about the pregnancy. The embryo’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to control her body, or to protect her emotional well-being.

However, according to the amendment, the rights equation changes according to the degree of agency the woman enjoys during the act of conception. The woman’s emotional well-being and right to physical integrity supersedes the embryo’s right to life only when conception occurs through no fault of her own.

In other words, a woman who is the victim of rape or incest does not “deserve” punishment in the form of an unwanted pregnancy, but a woman who chooses to have sex does. Thus, implies the Stupak Amendment, the protection afforded the embryo should be a result of its mother’s sexual agency rather than its inherent human rights.

The Stupak Amendment is a cynical insult both to women in general, and to those who oppose abortion based on a true belief in the sanctity of human life.