In the Media
IWF in the News: Pro-Life Sen. Jon Kyl Unfairly Painted as Anti-Woman by Abortion Backers
Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates are attempting to use
a quote from pro-life Sen Jon Kyl of Arizona to paint him as anti-woman.
During a recent exchange as a Senate committee considered a pro-abortion
health care bill, Kyl made a point about driving up health care costs
by requiring certain coverage.
"I
don't need maternity care," Kyl said about requirements that
would make some pay for maternity coverage. "And so requiring
that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don't need and
will make the policy more expensive."
Sen.
Debbie Stabenow, a pro-abortion Michigan lawmaker, responded: "I
think your mom probably did."
Kyl
shot back, "Yeah, over 60 years ago my mom did."
Abortion
advocates have seized on the comment in an effort to make it appear
Kyl, a top pro-life advocate in the Senate, has a problem with women
or helping pregnant women.
Carrie
Lukas writes in National Review Online today that nothing could be
further from the truth.
"Democrats
have been trying to justify their grand health-care plans by pushing
the 'women's angle,'" she writes. "As I've written before,
it's a tactic they often employ, and for good reason: It effectively
plays on sympathies and can make the opposition look like a bunch
of jerks."
"Senator
Kyl sounds terribly insensitive, no?" she says, responding to
the exchange.
"And
of course, everyone at least once has an interest in maternity care
given we're all born once. Most people do recognize there's something
different about the role of a pregnant woman in society; after all,
it isn't just her welfare at stake, but that of her innocent unborn
baby," she continues.
"Yet
Mr. Kyl makes a reasonable point," Lukas notes.
"When
government dictates what insurance policies must contain - whether
that is general maternity care or more specific mandates like a two-night
stay in hospital for any birth - the cost of insurance goes up,"
she writes.
But
Lukas says that concern about health care costs doesn't equal insensitivity
to the need to help pregnant women.
"We
can all agree that it's a problem when pregnant women can't afford
health care without flocking to support the kind of massive government
intervention in the health-insurance market that the Democrats are
advancing," she says. "There are far better ways to reform
health care to make it better for women."
Lukas
suggests that reforming the litigious nature of health care would
better help women than promoting a pro-abortion government-run health
care system.
"But
given the focus on maternity care, it's worth recalling that tort
reform is probably the best prescription," she surmises.
"The
specter of medical malpractice has been brutal on those practicing
obstetrics, which is why many doctors stop (or never enter) the field,"
she writes. "This has led to shortages of OBGYNs in some parts
of the country."
Lukas
concludes: "If you want to make maternity care more affordable
and readily available, why not start by limiting the damaging effects
of jackpot malpractice awards, instead of embracing a trillion-dollar
experiment with the health-care system?"






1 Comment
Tex Shelters | October 30, 2009, 5:15pm | #
If Kyl is so pro-woman, why did he vote against an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would that would punish contractors if they "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
Kyl would keep health care away from women when the intent of that care is to have healthy babies? That doesn't sound pro-life to me.
Peace,
Tex Shelters