Funding Freedom...not Death

The matter of whether or not to use federal subsidies to fund abortions is a hot topic in Congress right now as the new health reform bill attempts to make its way through. People on both sides of the issue are anchored to strong opinions which they are all but completely unwilling to compromise. Those who oppose using federal funds to pay for abortions claim they do not want the federal government to be responsible for funding death. This editorial represents the view of those in favor of federally funded abortions, and vehemently defends its stance that the government would not be funding death, but the freedom of choice. The heart of the writer’s argument is that federal subsidies should be used in the new health care reform bill to fund insurance plans that cover abortions because the government should not be allowed to stand in between doctors and patients in deciding what are and what are not good health care decisions for Americans. The main audience of the editorial are the people who represent the opposing side of the issue. This can be seen in the way the writer attempts to tear down the opposition’s argument and give support to their own view with the hope of changing the minds of their opponent.

Throughout this editorial the writer gives reasons to explain why their argument and opinion is strong and why their view is the correct one. The author defines many different groups of people who would be adversely affected by Congress refusing to allow federal subsidies to be used to finance abortions. These include people under the Medicaid program, federal government employees covered by the health insurance exchange, military personnel, American Indians, and women in prison. However, the largest of all these groups are women who are in the lower class. Poor women would be immensely affected by this because abortions are costly and women with low income would be scrounging to find enough money to pay for the abortions. Besides the cost this also presents a health risk because the longer it takes to find the money to pay for the abortion the riskier the abortion will be because the woman would be further along in her pregnancy. While this is important, the author also wants to make it clear that something much larger is at risk here. During the development of their argument the author shows that what is really on the line in this debate is simply the right of Americans to make health care decisions which they believe are in their own best interest. The writer wants to show that this threat is what takes precedence over any other negative effect that could be a result of not using federal subsidies to fund abortions. Unfortunately, there are a few weaknesses in the author’s argument.

The editorial includes both factual and logical errors. Errors in logic are what make up most of the gaps in this editorial, but there is one factual error that should be addressed. In the fourth paragraph the author states that restricting what abortions are acceptable (abortions needed after pregnancy from rape or incest) is an unconstitutional encroachment on American private lives. The author states this as though it is a fact when in reality it is just their personal opinion. Beyond this factual error there are no other problems with the statistics or other facts stated. However, there are many more errors that can be seen in the writer’s logic.

The first of these fallacies can be found in the opening paragraph. Here the author sets up the opposing side to look as though they are contradicting themselves. The writer states how critics do not want to restrict what procedures can be performed but says they are doing just that by not wanting the government to fund abortions. Another mistake in logic comes in the second paragraph in the form of an over generalization. The author writes that Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats are all against federally subsidized insurance plans that cover abortions. The writer should not assume that all Republicans are against this plan just because they are Republicans. The most noticeable fallacy in this article comes in the last sentence of the last paragraph. Here the editorial shows an obvious case of a slippery slope argument. It says that if Democrats compromise on this issue then they cannot allow it to be used against them later to further deny American health care rights. This is an implication that if they let one issue slide then they will open up the flood gates to more rights being refused. Looking beyond these errors and fallacies, however, the writer presents a valid argument which I support and I believe I could offer some help to further strengthen their view.

I would not like to take out any of the facts or information that the author has stated throughout the paper, rather, I would add some different information which I believe was left out. I believe that there is one very vital and large argument which was not addressed by the writer which could help to further defend their view against the opposition. Most people disagree with abortion and find it wrong because of their religious beliefs and ideals. Opponents of abortion claim that even though the embryo may not be a complete human being it is still a living being that contains a spirit. That being said, I would have liked to have seen the author defend his side against that argument more than he did. If I could try and strengthen his argument, I would add that our country’s Bill of Rights states that there is freedom of choice in religion. Since the entire population has the freedom to worship any religion, then our government should not entertain the beliefs of any particular religion and should operate as a unit without religious beliefs. In other words, religious beliefs should not play a role in governmental decisions and therefore those who oppose funding abortion for religious reasons are expressing invalid arguments. If the author would have taken this kind of a stance somewhere in the editorial then I believe they would have addressed the opposition’s strongest argument in a more direct manner. Other than this addition to the article, the only other suggestion I would make is to fix the writer’s logical fallacies which I talked about earlier.

Looking at the first logical error, making the opposition look as though they are contradicting themselves, I would suggest the author to simply rework their introduction. Instead of beginning the editorial by accusing the opposing side of hypocrisy I would suggest that the writer use a basic introduction where they just reveal the topic and some background information on it. Then later on the writer can reveal their view of the matter and further expound on their argument. This way the author is not counterproductive in their goal of attempting to sway the minds of the opposition because the writer will not be opening with something that could immediately anger their audience. To address the next fallacy I would suggest that the writer correct the over generalization made in the second paragraph about who are the opponents of the bill. This is the simplest fix because all the editorial needs to do is use the word “opponents” or “critics” instead of “Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats” so it is not making any generalizations about who is included in the opposing side. Lastly, I would change the slippery slope argument used at the very end. To do this the author could conclude the editorial by simply stating how important this issue is and calling out to the opposing side to please consider changing their views. This way there are no illogical conclusions drawn about how backing down on this issue could lead to having to back down on other issues in the future. Using these suggestions to change and correct the article I believe the author could strengthen their piece and be even more successful at turning the opposition in his favor.