I’m opposed to Federal funding of abortion for a reason I suspect many people haven’t considered.  Some of you know I believe elective abortions in the first trimester (at the very least) need to be legal.  After that, I have grave concerns unless there’s a purely medical reason for performing the procedure.  Why?  If a woman takes more than three months to decide if an abortion is right for her, there’s a solid chance it isn’t right for her, and she’s extremely likely to suffer emotional distress afterward.  Choose another option.

Since I favor the process, it may seem odd that I believe Federal funding should be denied.  After all, isn’t that discriminatory against people who have no other means to fund such a procedure?  As far as that argument goes, I can agree; however, if the Feds can fund it, it’s a teensy, tiny step until they can mandate it, and that’s where I draw the line.  If a woman can’t afford to find funding for an abortion, she may not be able to afford other things.  She certainly can’t afford to have kids.  That means the government, especially in a government health care system, might find it particularly important to decide the best course of action for a woman without financial means to proceed with a pregnancy might be to terminate it.  After all, if the government is going to have to help her financially, it’s much cheaper to fund a one time medical procedure than it is to pay WIC benefits, medicaid benefits, welfare benefits, childcare, etc.

Too many women elect an abortion and regret it later.  Imagine the emotional devastation if her health care provider (increasingly, that looks like it’s going to be the Federal government) determines she must have one performed because they’ve determined she cannot afford to have a child.