This article is a response to the staff editorial ‘Pro-life advocates’ misuse of term sparks controversy’ that ran Nov. 17, 2009
First, it was a poor analogy that women are born female and smoking is simply a personal choice that leads to bad health; it wasn’t incorrect in the way The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform meant it.
Because women give birth to children, their expected costs of health coverage are inherently higher than men; just as the expected costs of health coverage for smokers are inherently higher because of smoking’s negative effects on long-term health.
I pay more for auto insurance as a male because men have higher expected costs for coverage. It’s not my fault, but that’s the way it is.
Secondly, to the extent that women ‘deserve’ health care: sure they do, but not if they don’t pay for it. You are arguing that women deserve a subsidy. But one cannot expect society to subsidize women’s health insurance because God dealt them the hand of having higher future costs of coverage.
To the extent that anyone ‘deserves’ health care coverage: you are pushing the idea that it is a human right. Other human rights do not take from the others – the right to life, liberty, to vote, etc. The ‘right’ to health care coverage implies that you have the ‘right’ to someone else’s labor, which I profoundly reject.
The forcing of legislation that pushes these views should be unconscionable to anyone who values a free and just society.
