One of the commonly used terms in the debate over birth control, abortion and other “reproductive health care services,” as such are dubbed, is access. Hillary Clinton used the term recently in a speech at the 2015 Women in the World Summit, where she was quoted as saying:
far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth…
The context of the speech suggests she was speaking globally, and under this presumption (and the additional presumption that “reproductive health care” includes abortion, a safe one given Clinton’s ideological leanings), it’s a good observation, especially in Islamic nations. Clinton, however, didn’t snatch the word access out of thin air, nor is its use limited to repressive societies and third world nations. The phrase “access to reproductive health services” is common enough to auto-complete on Google. It is a strong and sober phrase, conveying both reasonableness and gravitas. It’s also hard to challenge. After all, what clear-thinking person would deny access to health services to someone else?
Certainly, those who believe that abortion is murder will object to that specific “health service” being lumped in with more benign services, but the dirty little secret behind the word access is that its advocates on the Left tack on an implicit addendum whenever they use it. That addendum is and paid for by someone else. Consider the recent Supreme Court case Burwell v Hobby Lobby. In that case, the Court held that Hobby Lobby, a company owned by people with strong religious objections to certain forms of contraception, didn’t have to pay for their coverage by the health insurance they provided to their employees, despite a mandate written into the Affordable Care Act to the contrary. This ruling was met with outrage by feminists and others on the Left, who wrote many words about access. To its credit, the Court recognized that the debate was not about women being precluded from acquiring those forms of contraception, but rather about who was going to pay for it. From the ruling:
There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue hereÉ
Note that cost-free is explicitly stated by the Court, bringing to the light of day the addendum many would prefer remain implicit. This was, of course, an opinion written by a conservative Justice, with the court’s four liberal Justices dissenting, but Justice Ginsberg’s dissent does makes at least one reference to cost among a plethora of statements of outrage about women being denied choice or the ability to make decisions for themselves.
Excluding abortion, there seems little to no noise in our society about precluding women from accessing reproductive health care. To the contrary, some who support Hobby Lobby side of things have argued that changing the status of birth control pills to over-the-counter from prescription-needed would contribute greatly to access, reducing both the cost of the pills themselves and the need to visit (and pay for) a doctor in order to get a prescription. This, however, doesn’t fit in with the and paid for by someone else addendum. Changing The Pill to over-the-counter status would not only undermine the outrage that the Left can generate on this issue, it would also empower individuals and take control away from a government that’s been steadily increasing its involvement in this country’s health care system.
Much has been written to justify the addendum, with some presenting a case that free birth control produces net economic benefit. This may very well be the case, but economics aren’t at the center of the Hobby Lobby objection, and burying the addendum by embracing the word access suggests that advocates do prefer to hide the question of cost or who pays if they can. That, or they are so far gone over to the side of socialist thinking that they cannot fathom a distinction between not being able to buy The Pill and not having someone else pay for it.
Access has also spilled out far beyond the realm of contraception and abortion into areas such health care, food, housing and education. The addendum is strong here, with advocates expecting that access means that a basic level of each is to be provided. By whom, and paid for by whom? To some, these details are secondary trivialities both in implementation and in implication, but providing access to these necessitates imposing on others. To ensure universal access to health care (paid for by someone else) not only requires collection of money from taxpayers, it will eventually require mandates on health care providers that include both cost control and directives about who gets treated. The same can be inferred for all other areas where access is demanded.
In order to give something to someone for free, something must be taken from someone else. The moment that starts to happen, degrees of freedom start to vary between members of a society, with some more free and others less free.
In its pure, un-addendized form, access is a good term. It implies freedom from coercive force or restriction, something that’s a hallmark of a society that embraces liberty. In its modern usage, however, it has become a dirty word, loaded with injustice, disparate treatment, discrimination, confiscation, redistribution and force.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters