Republican vs Democrats: Native American/Tribal Relations

 

There are over 574 Native American tribes in the United States that have been recognized by the Federal Government.  As a government, we need to work toward strengthening our relationships with the Tribal Nations and help to empower Native American nations to govern their own communities. Joe Biden plans to:

·        Strengthen the Nation-to-Nation Relationship between Native American tribes and the US Government.

·        Address health care disparities within the Native American community & provide quality & affordable health care.

·        Safeguard their natural & cultural resources by restoring tribal lands and addressing climate change.

·        Address the crisis of violence against Native women, children and the elderly by ensuring safer communities.

·        Expand economic & community development within Native American communities.

·        Invest in education for Native Americans.

·        Support & commemorate Native American veterans.

·        Protecting and ensuring Native Americans’ right to vote.

·        Continue to honor tribal sovereignty, self-governance and the federal trust responsibility to Tribal Nations.

·        Continue to build upon the efforts started during the Obama Administration that were instrumental in rebuilding trust and respect for the tribal-federal relationship.

·        Reinstate the annual White House Tribal Nations Conference

·        Make good use of the White House Council on Native American Affairs

·        Appoint Native Americans to high-level government positions, such as, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and Director of Indian Health Services.  By appointing Native Americans to these & other high-level positions, the administration will be ensuring that Native Americans have an equal voice in federal government.

·        He will nominate judges that understand federal Indian law, respect sovereignty & will uphold both the US Constitution & the treaties with the Native American Tribal Nations.

·        Address the chronic underfunding of federal obligations to Native American Nations.

·        Support & defend the Indian Child Welfare Act

·        Expand availability of health care providers within tribal communities & deploy telehealth services.

·        Reduce the disproportionate infant mortality rate that exists for Native mothers.

·        Reauthorize & expand the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.

·        Expand access to Mental Health & Substance Abuse treatment, as well as, work to reduce the number of Native suicides.

·        Reauthorize key parts of the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010 which strengthens the Tribal Justice System by expanding funding and use of federal Bureau of Prisons beds for offenders. 

·        Work with tribal leaders to find long-term solutions to the Supreme court decision on Oliphant v Suquamish, which has prevented tribes from prosecuting non-native offenders who commit crimes on tribal lands.

      This is just a he Tportion of the plan put forth by Joe Biden on Tribal Affairs.  You can learn more extensive information about his commitment to Native American relations at http://joebiden.com/tribalnations

      As for the Republican side of the fence, not much information could be found when searching for an on-going plan to strengthen relations with the Tribal Nations.  After searching several keys words, trying to locate a plan put forth by Republican candidate, President Trump, I still was unable to locate a solid, ongoing plan for addressing the issues affecting our Native American communities.  Trump appears to have a short record of enacting policies that will support the Tribal Nations.  Here is what I was able to locate:

 

§  The President is working to ensure Native American communities have the support they need to combat Coronavirus (COVID-19)

§  Signed the CARES Act which provided $8 billion to address the virus response & recovery within the Native American and Alaskan Native communities.

§  This is one of the largest programmatic investments in the Tribal Nations in the country’s history.

§  Allocated $1 billion to the Indian Health Service (HIS) to support tribal communities and Indian Organizations’ response to the Coronavirus.

§  Expanded telehealth across HIS regions.

§  Rapidly delivered medical supplies to Native American communities in response to the COVID-19 virus.

§  Signed the first-ever presidential proclamation recognizing the issue of missing & murdered Native Americans & Alaskan Natives.

§  Issued an Executive Order establishing a task force on missing & murdered Native Americans & Alaskan Natives.

§  He also created a Presidential Task Force on Protecting Native American Children served by the HIS.

§  He has worked to enhance the cooperation between the Federal Government and Tribal Nation Leaders to promote economic growth & improve the standards of living.

§  Re-Activated the White House Council on Native American Affairs in order to promote economic development & rural prosperity within the Native American community. 

§  Signed Executive Order to renew Operation Lady Justice Task Force which renewed federal efforts to support & protect Native women & children.

 

Unfortunately, I was not able to find a “Trump Plan” for Native American relations.  It is clear that while he has made efforts to support and help the Native American Tribal Nations, Trump does not have an ongoing plan. The question now becomes “How important is the issue of Native American Relations.”

 

Republicans vs Democrats on Criminal Justice

 

Today I am going to touch upon one of the biggest issues that the Presidential candidates are faced with this election year.  It is no secret that Republicans and Democrats each have their own ideals about the Criminal Justice system.

In recent months, Americans have seen terrible stories of police brutality, systemic racism and profiling within the criminal justice system and a hated against police officers has been ignited like never before in recent history. Incidents like the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota Police Officers or the murder of Brianna Taylor by Louisville,  KY Police have fueled the rise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement as well as a call for federal de-funding of law enforcement.  The question is, how does each side intend to address our Criminal Justice problems and which is a better way for our country?

I am going to lay out the differences, and any similarities, that exist between the two Presidential candidates and let my readers decide how they feel. 

While the Federal Government hasn't executed a Federal Prisoner since 2003; the topic of Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) remains a hot button item.  In November 2019, a Gallop Poll found that 56% of Americans oppose the death penalty.  With that in mind, here is what the two candidates claim to believe on this topic. 

Joe Biden is in line with the general stance taken by the Democratic Party and is against Capital Punishment at the Federal Level.  He states that he will work to pass legislation that eliminates the Federal Death Penalty.  He would also provide incentives to states which also eliminate the death penalty from their sentencing guidelines.  Biden believes that by eliminating the death penalty, we will be protecting the rights of individuals who have been falsely accused and falsely convicted of crimes in which they didn't commit.  One of the drawbacks to completely eliminating Capital Punishment is in severe cases of Murder and Child Abuse, the perpetrator would remain with the care of the Department of Corrections.  This is tax payer money that will help to pay for the lifelong incarceration of prisoners who would otherwise be guaranteed and "end date". 

Donald Trump supports Capital Punishment and does not intend on eliminating it. 

The biggest topic of this campaign when it comes to the criminal justice system is whether or not the candidates are for or against the Federal defunding of Law Enforcement.  While the Republicans would like to have American's believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats wish to do this, that is not entirely the truth.  Joe Biden is in full support of the SAFE Justice Act which is a comprehensive bill intended on reforming the criminal justice system and work toward the elimination of the racial, gender & income disparities within the system that unfairly target minority groups. 

President Trump has promised to hire more police officers, increase the penalties for assaulting a police officer, prosecute drive-by shootings as domestic terrorism, overturn reforms that end the cash bail system and prosecute groups such as Antifa for their violent protests & criminal activity.  All of these are commendable, however, there has not been put forth a clear cut plan by Trump or the Republican party on how they would deal with the racial, gender & economic discrimination and and cases of police misconduct.  The fact that President Trump fails to address this could be a major factor in the election. 

 

Republican vs Democrat on Gun Control

Every presidential election over the last 20 years has involved some kind of discussion on Gun Control.  The Republican Party, along with the NRA, argue that the Democratic Party wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and outlaw every citizens right to bear arms.  The majority of conservative Americans have fallen prey to this line of thinking.  As a result, many people oppose the election of Democratic candidates on the basis of false statements from the right.  

The actual text of the 2nd Amendment states: 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." 

If we look that the amendment as it was originally written and intended by the framers of the Constitution, the key words are "a well regulated Militia".  It is my belief that this portion of the Amendment provides a caveat to the right to bear & keep arms - that caveat is the regulation of those who chose to possess weapons as a means of providing security.  In addition, this amendment does not specifically limit these regulations to one specific class of weaponry. 

This means that it is completely within the parameters of the amendment for Congress to enact laws that provide regulation of those who chose to possess "arms".  As such, it is important to know that Gun Control does not equate to Banning Guns or Repealing the 2nd Amendment

Joe Biden has outlined his view on gun regulations and his plans if he is elected President. 

• Pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies
• Hold gun manufacturers accountable 
• Ban the manufacture & sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
• Institute a buy back program for assault weapons already in our communities
• Reduce "stock piling" of weapons
• Require background checks for ALL gun sales
• Create a program to ensure that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish them. 
• Give States incentives to set up gun licensing programs
• Establish a new task force on online harassment & abuse that will focus on the connection between mass shootings, extremism, violence against women & online harrassment. 
• Promote the past that 100% of the firearms sold in American are "smart guns"
• Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms

In contrast to Biden's stance on gun regulations, Donald Trump's only "plan" is to not make any laws that infringe upon anyone's right to purchase a gun.  Trump believes that concealed carry permits should be valid in all 50 states.  He has stated that the right to self-defense does not stop at the end of a person's driveway.  While he has stated that the amendment is clear, his interpretation of the amendment seems to disregard the portion that states "a well regulated Militia".  

Pros & Cons of the Biden Healthcare Plan

Yesterday I posted the Pros & Cons of the health care plan that was proposed in 2017 and subsequently failed to be passed by Congress.  While much of the information from that post was taken from Trump’s 2017 plan, I was not able to find any type of revised plan by Trump that doesn’t hold the same pros and cons. 

Today, I am going to provide the pros and cons of the Biden Plan.  While much of his plan simply builds off of the already in-effect Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), there are a few major points that actually revise Obamacare into a better plan than originally passed. 

Pros:

• Adding a Public Option to the ACA that will provide insurance coverage for approximately 97% of all Americans.  Despite the arguments put out by the Republican party, this is NOT “Coverage for All” but rather an option made available on top of the private options for individuals to PURCHASE from the government.  Biden’s public option is not part of Medicare, but rather more like an expansion of Medicaid.
• Because of the Government’s large bargaining power, the rates on a public insurance option would likely be more in tune with the rates of Medicare policies.
• Separately, Biden’s plan includes a proposal to expand the existing Medicare program by lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. This makes millions of Americans eligible for coverage sooner. 
• The current ACA caps the amount of income that a family can make in order to receive a tax credit toward the purchase of their health coverage.  Biden’s plan removes that income cap which would allow all American’s who purchase their coverage through the ACA Marketplace to receive help from the government.
• Tax credits would be calculated based on “Gold” plans instead of “Silver” plans; this should help bring down the out-of-pocket costs.
• It will allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies in turn saving Seniors money on their drug costs.
• The Biden plan allows Americans to purchase their medications from other countries, such as Canada, which in turn promotes competition in the pharmaceutical industry making prices trend down
• Tax loopholes that only benefit that super-wealthy through Capitol Gains tax law would be eliminated, making the “playing field” when it comes to taxation between the poor & the wealthy a little bit more even. 
• A cap of 8.5% of the individual purchaser’s income would go into effect, meaning that insurance companies could no longer “gouge” consumers with high premiums that are unaffordable.
• Since some states did not expand their state Medicaid system under the ACA of the Obama Administration, Biden’s plan would provide a Federal Program that would allow low-income families in the non-expansion states to be covered.
• The new plan will ban “surprise bills” for insureds that require “out-of-network” hospital care.
• Mandate the coverage of pre-existing conditions. (the ACA includes this component as well, however, the Trump administration has worked throughout his first-term to remove this requirement & no longer require insurance providers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions.)
• An Independent Review Board would be established to review the value of all new drugs being launched by pharmaceutical companies. This board would have the power to set prices for these new drugs and would try got stop Pharmaceutical companies from abusively pricing new drugs.
• Premium increases would be limited to the rate of inflation.  Drugmakers would incur a tax penalty if they raise prices more than this rate.
• End tax breaks to Pharmaceutical companies for advertising.
• The government would take a more active stance on the enforcement of Antitrust laws against mergers of companies within the medical industry.
• A long-needed overhaul to the caregiving infrastructure that would create jobs, improve working conditions & create/invest in new models on long-term care outside of the nursing home setting.
• Restore funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
• Double funding for community health centers.
• Support & encourage the expansion of funding for mental health services by enforcing the Mental Health Parity Law.

Cons:

• Biden’s plan would cost taxpayers $750 billion over 10 years.  This would paid for by ending the Trump tax cuts which in turn could effect the amount of taxes paid by lower-income workers.
• A shift of more Americans being covered under the Medicare system would mean lower reimbursements to the medical providers.  While this would not be a con to the majority of Americans, it is a downside for anyone in the medical profession who’s income is, in part, dependent upon Medicare reimbursement.
• The plan does not address the overall costs of medical care in the United States.  While lower insurance premiums help working-class Americans and Lower Income citizens; there are still no regulations on how much a person would have to pay out of pocket for services.  There is no plan limiting the deductibles that Americans will have to pay, the amount of “co-insurance” required by insurers or the overall costs in general for medical treatment. 
• I was unable to locate anything in Biden’s plan that discusses the “mandate” which was included in the Affordable Care Act.  Though the Trump Administration and the Republican-led Congress have made it clear they would like to get rid of the mandate, it is not entirely clear if the mandate is or isn’t still in effect. In either case, Biden makes no promise that if removed by the Trump Administration that he would not “add it back in” if elected President.  But, he also does not address if he would leave it out.  This is a big negative for anyone who feels they should not be “forced” into having medical care or be fined.  In my opinion, I don’t understand why anyone would not want to have health insurance (besides cost), however, without insurance, should a person fall victim to illness, the costs out of pocket are astronomical. 
•  

So, is the Biden Plan enough?  If you are looking for my opinion, no it is not enough, however, is a HUGE leap forward as opposed to the plan offered by the Trump Administration.  As health care costs continue to rise, Health Insurance Companies are banking record profits year after year after year.  How?  Because of their unscrupulous increases of insurance premiums to consumers and the way insurance companies like to deny coverage for procedures or medications that they “deem” to be “unnecessary.  It doesn’t matter if those procedures or medications may cure someone of whatever ails them.  Americans are expected to pay a monthly premium, then on top of that, they are required to pay for medical care & services until a deductible is met.  Often times this deductible is more than a monthly house or rent payment.  After that is paid, while continuing to pay a monthly premium, they then have to pay a co-insurance or a percentage of the total bill.  For example, let’s say Suzy pays $450 per month for her coverage.  The plan she has purchased requires her to pay the first $1000 of care.  This is automatically an expense of $6400 per year.  Let’s say Suzy meets her $1000 deductible which now means her insurance company will pay 75% of all of her care with In-Network providers.  But, her coverage requires her to pay a co-insurance of $4000 more (a total of $5000 w/the $1000 deductible)  before they will provide 100% coverage.  This means that Suzy is required to pay $10,400 per year of her income just for medical coverage.  The problem is that Suzy only brings home about $25,000 a year.  This means that, not including any medications or over-the-counter medical costs she may incur, nearly 42% of her income is paying for her medical care.  This is more than most financial experts recommend a person pays for their housing!  

 

Pros & Cons of Trump's Proposed Health Care Plan

This year has proven to be a bit chaotic in terms of Americans going about their daily lives.  Today’s post will examine the pros & cons of President Trump’s Healthcare plan.  Tomorrow, I will examine the pros & cons of Joe Biden’s plan. 

I tried to put together a simple “pros and cons” list taken from information obtained from both partisan & non-partisan sources.  The information I will be referencing was gathered from both candidate’s own public websites, as well as, organizations such as the non-partisan Mayo Clinic and WebMD.  Over the last 4 years, all of us have been programmed to believe that the media is just distributing “fake news” and the trust in organizations like CNN, Fox News and the like has been nearly non-existent. Therefore, while I have read many of the reports that have been put out by these media outlets, I have chosen not include their findings or reports here.  It will be up to my readers to decide if I have been unbiased enough so that you can make an informed and truthful decision.

Let’s start with Trumps stance on healthcare:

Pros:

• In August 2020, President Trump expanded coverage Telehealth benefits under the Medicare & Medicaid programs as part of his response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
• He also authorized funding for 185 Telehealth providers in 38 states.
•  Trump has promised during his 2016 & 2020 presidential campaigns to “repeal & replace” the original Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in order to remove some of the more controversial parts of the bill.
•  Although he has not repealed the ACA, he has enacted several directives & orders to remove key portions of the bill such as the mandate that allows for fines to be levied against individuals & corporations who do not purchase healthcare.  NOTE: I placed this under the “pros” section because this has been a major point of contention for the majority of Republicans.  This is a pro for those who lean more to the right on health care policies while it would be “con” to anyone that leans to the left. 
• Believes that with a Free Market System, more options will be made available, which in turn will drive down prices and foster innovation.
• Believes that insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions.
• Advocates for transparency in health care costs to avoid “surprise” medical billing.
• Under President Trump’s proposed plan (known as Trump Care), it would provide an immediate reduction to the Nation’s deficit by saving approximately $15 billion per year until 2026.
• His plan eliminates the highly controversial mandate that was included in Obamacare. 
• It would increase the amount of contributions to HSA funds from $6,750 per family to $13,100. In addition, HSAs are not taxed as long as the funds are used for qualified medical expenses and if a balance is not used within the benefit year, it can be rolled over for use in the next year.  It would include over-the-counter medications as part of the qualified expenses & reduce the early withdrawal tax penalty from 20% to 10%.
•  It removes consumer taxes on medical equipment & devices, some prescription medications and some health insurance plans that would be taxed under Obamacare.
• Provides reciprocity to insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines without the need to for the companies to hold individual licenses for each state.  This increases competition with hope that it would drive down premium costs for consumers.  Companies would only have to hold a license in the state they are headquartered to be able to sell in the other 49 states.
• While it removes that mandate of coverage for preexisting conditions, it provides subsidies to individuals with preexisting conditions in order to cover the cost of higher premiums for coverage.  NOTE:  This is also a con in that it allows insurance companies to charge higher premiums on the basis of what they consider to be a preexisting condition – this includes simply being a female of child bearing age.
• Trump’s plan includes many of the more popular aspects of Obamacare such as the option to keep children on their parent’s policies until age 26.
• The cost of healthcare services would be tax deductible; combining this with the subsidies is thought to provide more relief low-income consumers.
• The tax penalties to large employers was removed AND the tax credits to small businesses were also rolled back.  By doing this, corporations would save a lot of money which could be used to inject more money into corporate economy.  NOTE: There is also a down side – Small Businesses would lose a badly needed tax credit that could eventually result in the failure of small businesses due to the rising costs of healthcare that they would be required to absorb without any benefit to the business itself. 

Cons:

• Trump’s proposal leaves approximately 24 million Americans without health insurance. This estimate is based on the removal of the individual mandate.  With its removal, stricter regulations would be enforced on how Medicaid & Medicare operate AND who would qualify for these programs.  As a result, Americans who cannot afford to purchase coverage within the marketplace but do not meet the qualifications for Medicaid and/or Medicare would go without coverage. 
• Less regulations, leaving insurance companies, medical care providers & pharmaceutical companies open to drive up costs & provide less.
• Waives the essential care benefits that are required under the ACA-including OB/GYN services, mental health services, etc.  The idea is to allow those who don’t require such services to have a waiver of coverage.  For example, a male consumer can waive coverage for OB/GYN services since he has no need for their services.  A person could waive coverage for mental health services because they don’t think they would use them.  The problem arises that one cannot foresee the future – just because those services may not be needed right now, doesn’t mean that the services would not be needed in the future.  Also, each state would be allowed to draft their own set of regulations, creating a whole new system of care.
• Trump’s plan increases costs to individuals with preexisting conditions, including females who have not yet reach menopause and are still able to reproduce.  Yes, it’s true – simply being female & of the age to carry babies in your belly is a preexisting condition!  Insurance companies would be permitted to deny policies, deny individual coverage for treatments and services or charge so much that the consumer could not afford the coverage on the basis of the consumer being female age 12-50 or 60 years old, having a preexisting condition such as diabetes, BMI of over 25, High Blood Pressure, history of depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcoholism, addiction, Heart Attack, Stroke, etc.  And that is even if you’ve had a clean bill of health after addressing these conditions in the past.  For example, let’s say you had been being treated for high blood pressure due to being obese.  You had weight loss surgery, lost enough weight to be considered “normal BMI”.  You no longer have to take high blood pressure medication or monitor your heart so closely.  You’ve had a clean bill of health for a couple of years by making lifestyle changes – but now you have to get a new policy.  The health insurance company would be allowed to review your medical history dating back to birth and deny coverage or charge a higher premium because of your past health conditions that no longer are a risk factor. 
• The removal of premium cost caps.
• Cost of care for Seniors would increase significantly.  Insurance companies would be allowed to increase the premium for Seniors up to 5 times more than what they would charge a younger a adult.  For example, a policy covering a 21 year old might cost $100; the exact same policy would cost a Senior Citizen $500. 
• Obamacare authorized an expansion of Medicaid to help those individuals who are unable to obtain coverage through the private sector.  Under Trump’s plan, this expansion would be rolled back, leaving poor individuals who are not able to obtain coverage on their own without any coverage at all. 
•  HSAs are STILL your money being used to pay for health care; which increases the total amount being spent on health care services & products.
• Trump allows up to a 30% surcharge if your health insurance coverage lapses for a specific period of time.  In addition, there would be surcharges for preexisting conditions.  While some subsidies would be available, they would be limited and would not cover the surcharges fully.
• Targets Planned Parenthood and abortion services.  Under Trump Care, funding for Planned Parenthood and any other organization or provider that received funding through the Federal Government could not make abortion referrals. This plan also cut or restricts coverage to private companies that would cover abortion services or referrals.  The only exception if federal funding was part of your healthcare plan was if abortion was needed in order to save the mother’s life or the pregnancy was a result of incest or rape.  You could not have a qualified plan that covered abortion services.
• No reduction of co-pays or deductibles. This could dramatically increase a person’s monthly medical expenses due no only having to pay the monthly premium, but also being required to pay co-pays AND deductibles.  Currently, that require this are still in place. (In addition to the monthly premium paid for coverage, some health plans require individuals to meet a deductible before the insurance coverage pays anything.  While the individual is trying to meet that deductible, they are also required to pay co-pays for certain services – for example, my coverage charges a $75 co-pay for Specialists, $300 co-pay for ER visits and $35 co-pay for our primary doctor.  In addition to these charges, we are required to meet a $5500 deductible before the insurance company will pay anything, which is only 75%.  We are required to pay 25% of the total in addition to the visit co-pays until another dollar amount is met – called Co-Insurance.  Once the co-insurance amount is met, then, and only then does the insurance company pay 100% of the charges beyond the visit co-pay amount.  So, lets say I go to the ER.  I have to $300 co-pay, 100% of the total charges up to $5500.  After $5500 is paid, then I would only pay 25% plus $300)  Sounds confusing doesn’t it?  Not only does it confusing but it can cause a family to go into bankruptcy.  Especially if they already live paycheck to paycheck without any form of assistance.

Trump Care could have had some success if it weren’t for the flaws. It shifts the brunt of costs onto the lower end of the income scale instead of subsidizing it from the upper end of the income scale. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer…literally.

Although the goal is to increase consumer choice in the marketplace; it is likely that the opposite would occur. People who do not wish to purchase coverage or who were healthy enough not to need it; could drop out of the market without penalty.  This could lead to insurance company “death spirals” that would decrease consumer choice.

Also, the added expenses to seniors could be an untenable position. Trump, himself, acknowledges that over 20 million people could lose coverage. The moderate gains on the national deficit pales in comparison to the potential harm that could happen over time under Trumps plan.

 

Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Why Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion

With the 2020 Presidential Election a little over 1 month away, it seemed only fitting that my first post after a long absence from my blog be about why I think that many supporters on both sides of the political aisle have misinterpreted the beliefs & values of their opponents.  It seems to be especially prevalent when it comes to the accusations made by the Republican party against the Democratic Party.

 For my first post, I am going to discuss the difference between being Pro-Life vs being Pro-Choice and share with you why and how the Republican Party has it wrong and is spreading inaccurate information.  In addition, I will explain how laws that restrict abortion and/or a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive health care are unconstitutional.  I fully expect to receive

So, let’s jump right in.  Let’s talk about the difference between being Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  This is probably the biggest misconceived topic when it comes to the way Republicans try to undermine Democrats.  Being Pro-Choice is NOT about being Pro-Abortion.  In fact, it is nearly the opposite.  Being Pro-Choice is having the stance that each individual woman should have the right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.  In contrast, Pro-Life supporters believe that life begins at conception and, therefore, abortion is “murder”.  Scientifically, this is not the case. 

Did you know that prior to the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, single women could not legally obtain birth control?  That’s right! Prior to 1973, if you were single, you could not legally obtain birth control.  Only married women could obtain prescriptions for birth control from their doctors.  So, not only were women prohibited from legally & safely ending an unwanted pregnancy, they weren’t even allowed to legally obtain the birth conte rol that would likely prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. 

So, what does this mean in terms of Roe v. Wade and the Republican party’s push to have the ruling overturned?  Theoretically, if the ruling is completely overturned by the Supreme Court, single women may once again be banned from legal access to birth control.  They would be forced to either continue with an unwanted pregnancy or choose to terminate the pregnancy in unsanitary & unsafe conditions.  Banning abortions and access to birth control does not help the advancement of women; but instead brings women even further away from the equality they have fought decades for. 

 As a sociologist, I also have to look at the societal effect that this contentious topic has on the world around us.  I have to then propose that an answer be found to certain consequences that may arise.  First, let’s think about what happens if abortion is delegalized and the Republican Party/Pro-Life get what they want – for the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Decision of Roe v. Wade.  Abortion for be illegal in all 50 states and the US territories.  Women would be either forced to carry an unwanted, and in some cases, potentially deadly, pregnancy leading to the birth of thousands of unwanted children. If a woman decides that she cannot carry through with the unwanted pregnancy, she will seek a “back alley” abortion clinic.  That clinic in many cases will be unsanitary & unsafe. 

This could then lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of women losing their own lives due to having no safe place to end the unwanted pregnancy.  Making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening; it will make the conditions horrific & put more and more women, especially young women, at a higher risk of infections, disease & potentially death. 

By allowing abortions to remain legal in all 50 states and by declaring laws which prohibit abortions in various ways, we in effect protecting the lives women.  We are also providing a means for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies by allowing all women to obtain birth control to try to put an end to unwanted pregnancies.  This includes allowing open access to the “morning after” pill, also known as Plan B.  In addition, we are empowering young women to be able to stand up for themselves, take control of their own lives and to deal with the consequences of their actions, both negative and positive by making a choice that is right for them.  We are allowing them to make a choice based on their own personal morals, values & beliefs and not based upon the beliefs of some lawmaker. 

 Once we look at the ramifications for the health & well-being of the woman, we have to then look at the potential effect that banning abortions will have on our welfare system, foster care & adoption systems and the well-being of the baby who has been brought into the world unwanted and, in many cases, unloved by their birth parent.  Let’s say that a 23 years college senior has accidentally become pregnant.  She has not yet graduated from college, so she works at the local coffee shop to earn money while attending her university classes.  Roe v. Wade has been overturned, so abortion is illegal and she became pregnant because she was no longer able to obtain the birth control pills that would have prevented the pregnancy.  Her partner used a condom, but it broke.  This girl was afraid to have an illegal abortion because she knew how unsafe it could be.  She decided, together with her partner, that they would put the unwanted baby up for adoption.  This way they both could finish college and go about their wonderful lives as if nothing had ever happened.  Though the woman & her partner desperately tried to find a loving, caring home for their baby, they were unable to find adoptive parents before the baby’s birth.  As a result, they baby was left in the care of Social Services and placed in the foster care system until a family could be found to adopt the baby.  Because of the number of children already in the foster care system, an adoptive family was never identified and the baby grew up floating around from foster home to foster home never really knowing the love of having a true family.  At 18, they “aged out” of the system, unequipped & financially unable to live on their own.  They end up living on the streets, homeless, with no where to go and no family to care about them..  All while the birth parents have long since graduated from college, have wonderful & lucrative careers, ended up getting married and had more children, who were planned, wanted & loved.  Birth mom, however, has a whole in heart where her first born child should be.  She longs to have her first born in her life and regrets her decision every day.  She is depressed and may even have developed some kind of dependence or addiction to something that helps her to hide or forget about the pain; if only for a little while.  The child who was faced with a life on their own, no real parents to raise them, no siblings to grow up with and no family to provide emotional support has no education beyond what was required by law, has no health coping skills and is unable to hold down a decent job because they are so used to moving around all of the time. 

 This is the snowball effect that occurs when a woman’s choice is limited or completely stripped away.  I have asked this question of many people who have identified themselves to me as Pro-Life.  That question is:  Are you willing to adopt, love & care for each and every unwanted child who is abandoned by their birth parent(s) who were forced to give birth to a child they didn’t want, have no intention of caring for, or don’t have the financial ability to care for?  Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that all of those unwanted children are able to be fed and clothed and cared for through the welfare system?  Are you willing to love & support that young mother who may have made a mistake that she wishes she hadn’t made and is now forced to care for a baby when she is still a baby herself? If your answer to any of those questions is “no”; you may need to reevaluate your stance on reproductive rights.  You may need to consider that it’s not your choice to make. 

 In conclusion, laws that are enacted using Christian ideology and beliefs are a violation of the Constitution of the United States which provides for the freedom of religion and the separation of church & state.  This means that our government shall not force upon its citizens any particular official or national religion and may not enact laws that infringe upon the religious freedoms of it’s citizens.  Therefore, laws banning and/or restricting abortion and a woman’s choice on how to address her own reproductive health that are based upon the values of and scripture from the bible are, in fact, unconstitutional.