Regulation or prohibition?

Government regulation of any market tends to inspire protest.

Almost everyone agrees that some activities should be supervised while others should not be.

Recent debates about abortion and health care services have highlighted the fact that people frequently take mixed positions on regulations.

Few people support every restriction that is proposed, and likewise, few are in favor of eliminating completely the important role government plays in society.

Politicians who favored government intervention in health care tend to think abortion should not be regulated any more than it is. And some of the health care reform act’s notable opponents are now leading an assault on abortion rights.

For example, the New York Times reported last week that pro-life advocates are skillfully manipulating the new law’s implementation to make it more difficult for private insurers to provide coverage for abortions.

As the new law takes effect, states are building individual health care exchanges that will provide insurance for an estimated 28 million people who are ineligible for more affordable large group plans offered through an employer.

Many state legislatures are specifically designing exchanges that exclude any insurance plan that offers coverage for abortion.

Conservatives are often only in favor of small government when small government favors a socially conservative agenda.

Their actions cannot be justified by the oft-cited desire to keep tax dollars from funding abortions. The insurance exchanges are set up by the states but are entirely funded by the private citizens purchasing the plans.

So it is really a restriction on how private citizens can spend their money, something one would assume politicians who are truly in favor of small government would oppose.

Additionally, the effects of such an anti-abortion insurance requirement might extend beyond the exchanges.

The Times also reported that some women’s rights activists are worried that a requirement that insurance for the exchanges not include abortion coverage may persuade insurance companies that covering abortions is generally too expensive.

Since the contradictions of the conservative approach to regulation are increasingly being identified, liberals should prepare to respond to the inevitable accusation that they also subjectively pick and choose what to regulate.

We must be able to articulate why it is not contradictory to oppose increases in abortion regulations while enthusiastically supporting general regulations of the health insurance markets.

One distinction is that Republicans’ new proposals are not aimed at “regulating” abortion insurance, making sure companies adopt ethical practices and providing insurance in a nonexploitative way.

Rather, what these plans seek is to impede access to abortions to effectively prohibit the very service they seek to regulate.

­— wallacen@indiana.edu