A necessary right to choose

Yale University Health Plan's (YUHS) abortion services concern many pro-life students at Yale, and with good reason. The premium that we pay for access to goes into funding all clinical services, including abortions. However, questions of individual morals—the heart of a pro-life argument—are not appropriate in a larger discussion about freedom of access, health, and choice for women seeking abortions at YUHS.

To clarify the YUHS abortion policy: contrary to the often-quoted "3 abortions per student" funding statistic, Paul Genecin, director of YUHS, stated that he had never heard of such a quota. Indeed, no separate "abortion fund" even exists, although money for abortions does come from the general YUHS funds. The reality is that few women receive abortions from YUHS; the majority of our premium pays for other routine medical services.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have allowed states to cut funding for all abortions except in instances of rape, incest, or those deemed "medically necessary" by a doctor. Even when a woman has a legitimate right to an abortion, she may face the daunting task of traveling long distances to reach a provider, high medical costs, or a hostile environment. These are compelling reasons to maintain Yale's abortion services. Yale is a private institution and can thus provide abortions to women without the shackles of state rules. The Yale Health Plan serves the greater New Haven community as well. New Haven is a hub for many things, including health care. Women have a legal right to access abortions, and Yale can provide that free from the restrictions that a state clinic would face.

Access is not a good enough reason on its own to continue Yale's policy of providing abortions with money collected from Health Plan members; women's health clinics in New Haven provide abortions too. However, the health of the women seeking abortions is a major factor in maintaining Yale's services. Women's clinics, unlike YUHS, usually receive part of their funding from the state. This leaves them in a precarious position. When funding is cut, access to abortions must be restricted or denied as an economic consequence. When medically safe, state-funded abortion providers can no longer perform abortions, women turn to unsafe and life-threatening methods of abortion.

Whether or not we want to admit it, women will always seek abortions, and those who feel they have no option but to abort will abort, even if they do so at the risk of their own lives. The relative security with which Yale offers abortions provides women with a safe medical environment in which to have an abortion. A woman who seeks an illegal abortion because she has no other option runs a high risk of killing herself as well. The health of a community and the safety of its women demand that providers such as Yale, which have stable funding sources, continue to provide a proper medical environment for those seeking medical services—including abortion.

Finally, the right to choose belongs to all of us. In light of the arguments above, a woman's right to choose to have an abortion should not be made for her by limiting her access to a medically safe abortion provider. Abortion is legal in the United States. By the same token, pro-life individuals who cannot bear the thought that they are inadvertently funding a morally abhorrent procedure have every right to choose a university whose health plan does not use funds to provide abortions. We must evaluate the legal and social aspects of Yale's abortion policy before evaluating the inherently subjective and unresolvable moralistic debate of abortion.

Andi Young, a sophomore in Branford, is a Yale Women's Center Coordinator.

Back to Opinion...