The Corner

Stopping Taxpayer-Subsidized Abortions on College Campuses

The debate over Obamacare last spring raised the issue of abortion coverage in health-insurance plans. This is more prevalent than many people realize. Last spring, reports indicated that anywhere from 50 percent to 80 percent of privately held insurance plans cover abortion services. Even worse, a recently released study by Students for Life of America (SFLA) indicates that abortion is covered by many student insurance plans offered by leading colleges and universities.

The SFLA study carefully researched the health-insurance plans offered by the 200 largest colleges in the United States. The findings were astonishing. Of the 200 schools studied, 86 offered health-insurance plans that cover abortion. Even worse, 38 schools automatically enroll students into a plan which covers abortion. Now, in many cases students can opt out. However, many will not because they are unaware these plans cover abortion or simply because school-sponsored health plans often cost less than commercial plans. This study clearly reveals that many students and taxpayers are unknowingly subsidizing abortion on college campuses across America.

From a social-science perspective, the findings were interesting. Many of the schools that automatically enroll students in plans that cover abortion are Ivy League schools like Harvard, Columbia, or the University of Pennsylvania, or are located in the Northeast or on the west coast. Colleges in the South were less likely to cover abortion in their health-care plans. However, there were some exceptions. The SFLA study found that the University of Virginia and a number of public universities in North Carolina automatically enroll students into a health-care plan that covers abortion.

This is certainly an issue that pro-life activists should take up in their respective state legislatures. College students typically have little in the way of discretionary income. As such, subsidizing abortion through insurance policies makes it far more likely that a student facing an unplanned pregnancy would submit to an abortion.

Furthermore, there are some interesting policy implications here. Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) recently introduced H.R. 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would enact a permanent, government-wide prohibition on funding of both abortion and health plans that cover abortion. Considering that nearly all colleges and universities accept students who have Pell Grants, the passage of this legislation could conceivably force universities to drop abortion coverage from their health-insurance plans.

Throughout last spring’s debate over health-care reform, it was clear that a vast majority of Americans did not want their taxpayer dollars subsidizing abortion. In fact, this concerted opposition by pro-life groups was the most difficult political obstacle that the Obama administration had to overcome in order to enact health-care reform. This study from SFLA provides important additional evidence in the debate over cutting off taxpayer funding for abortion.

— Michael New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.

Michael J. New is a visiting assistant professor of social research and political science at the Catholic University of America and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
Elections

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More