Women's vote: Who is really the villain in the women's health debate?

It is campaign season so the claims have begun again and we are left to try to decipher who is for women's health and who is not.

To borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton's infamous defense of his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky - "is" depends on how you define women's health.

But before you start shaking as a woman because you are worried about the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body, there are a few facts you need to consider.

First, keep this in mind, just because some leaders - and not just Republicans by the way - are appalled by the Planned Parenthood tapes and are calling for a removal of federal money from that organization's funding stream does not mean they want all public health services for women to cease.

There are plenty of public health services available for women right now. Just ask anyone who works for one of them. And one of those benefits is free or very low cost contraception.

There are also exams available as well as well-child services, all free or at a reduced cost.

And there is no question that those services are necessary and important. Funding like that absolutely should be made available and services like that protected.

Where some leaders diverge is when public funds are used to fund abortion services.

The Planned Parenthood claim is that it provides so many more services than just that - and that is the justification for continuing the federal role in the organization's funding.

But the bottom line is - some people are absolutely solidly pro-choice and some people are solidly against the procedure and do not want their money used for that purpose.

And the call is that those who want to support those services should be able to do so through private donations and that public money should be used for something else.

Add to that the argument about what should and should not be required by health insurance plans.

The argument over Hobby Lobby centered around the "morning after" abortion pill. The business did not want to fund the pill, but offered a variety of other contraception options.

And it was determined, they had that right.

Bottom line, if you do not agree with Hobby Lobby on the abortion pill, work somewhere else.

The same is true for the Catholic hospitals, the nuns and others who have challenged being required to offer birth control, something they do not believe in. The bottom line, again, if you don't believe that same way, work somewhere else.

It amazing that in 2015 anyone would say that a party is systematically against women's health issues. More and more services are offered and paid for today than ever before.

The question really centers around abortion, nothing else.

So figuring out for whom to vote centers on what you really believe about abortion and a business's right to offer benefits that do not fundamentally violate its deeply held principles.

It is as much about supporting deeply held beliefs on the other side. Those who feel strongly about pro-choice options like the morning after pill should be able to seek out those services and to find workplaces where the option is available.

So who is for women's health? All of them.

The challenge for voters? Figuring which candidates are stating deeply held beliefs and can defend them with more than a toss-off comment and which are simply propagating a fear or pandering to what they think a certain bloc of voters wants to hear.

And when you figure that out, you will know where to cast your vote.

We think most women will figure that out for themselves.

Published in Editorials on August 21, 2015 10:43 AM