Things in thee Huffington Post

Just recently I read an article on the House's passing of the Protect Life Act. Such an interesting concept to consider as, not either a democrat or republican, but simply as a person. Vaguely stated, the article read something to the effect of the fact that the act was indeed passed, and in doing such, the new Obamacare plan will not cover abortion regardless of the situation. At this point, republicans and Sarah Palin are bounding for joy. The same notion of eradicating abortion is carried on in the proposal by Mr. Joe Pitts, the republican candidate for Pennsylvania. In his introduction to a new act, he believes that it should no longer be in the rights of women to be able to by private insurance to cover abortion. Which, on the whole, would eradicate abortion as covered by any insurance completely. Now, as someone who identifies with no political party and or religion, this strikes an interesting chord. As a taxpayer, I don't see the benefit in supporting the abortions by anyone covered by Obamacare. There are other things that I think are less important than giving a woman an abortion that, for some reason or another, is in great need of one, but I digress. In Mr. Pitt's new statement, not only would it be illegal for public and private insurance to cover abortions, across the board, it would also be in the moral hands of the hospital in question to decide whether or not they wanted to give a patient, in a life-threatening situation or otherwise, an abortion. Namely, Catholic hopsitals. This is where the boundaries are beginning to be pushed. While there is something to be said about the taxpayer dollars going towards a procedure that more than half the country is against, regardless of where the President stands, the few strands of Democracy left in America still hold true for this majority. So, in passing the Protect Life Act, there is a valid and logical explanation. The politics in Mr. Pitt's proposal, is a giant leap too far in what seems to be a close race in a liberal vs. conservative argument. To strip the rights of women to knowingly buy an insurance plan that covers an abortion at any point, is wrong. The rights of women have long been fought for in this country, and as a woman, I resent the fact, that in a life or death situation, even with private health insurance, not only may a medical abortion not be covered, it may, in some institutions be denied. In the worst case scenario, my life would be sacrificed on the basic reasoning, that the doctor or hospital did not morally feel right in saving my life. Which morals are truly under question when this situation crops up? The hospital who lets a woman die? Or the hospital that gave her an abortion to save her life? There should be no question, that the life of an American woman is valued far more than the politics of aborting her child. Thankfully, at the present time, the house is democratically controlled, stripping the wind of the act's sails. The ideas in general bright questions into light that I, as an American in the 21st century, truly never thought I would be asking myself. Is there going to be a day when the politics and philosophy of the population, overcomes the very basic remains of what is truly right and truly wrong? Where is the line drawn, when people take a step back and realize that this evergrowing theoretical problem is something we ourselves have created by ignoring the actuality behind what we're arguing about? And when, if ever, will our country realize, that treating a symptom never solves the problem, but remembering that there is a core to every body, whether that be physical, societal, or political, that is much more fragile than the symptoms that it gives off? The idea that moral opinion and belief is being put above the emergency of ethics, can give anyone goosebumps. It honestly makes me question the future of this country, and who will remain when the last prescription is given out.