Abortion not only morally contentious issue funded

TO THE EDITOR:

 In Monday’s Daily Tar Heel, Kristian Doty wrote a letter opposing government funding for abortions (“Abortion should not be covered by health care,” Nov. 16). One argument is that abortions should not be funded by taxpayers since it would force pro-life citizens to pay for something they consider immoral.

Doty ignores the fact that taxpayers have always had to fund the actions of the government, regardless of the taxpayer’s moral opinions. In 1849, Thoreau refused to pay his taxes to protest a war. More recently, the taxes of pacifists have gone to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The argument does not stand up to legal and historical precedent.

The second argument concerns the difference between having a right and having that right subsidized by the government.

Doty uses as an example the right to gun ownership, but ignores a right which the government does subsidize: the right to legal counsel. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court determined that the right to an attorney was so intrinsic to human rights that, should a person be unable to afford an attorney, the state must provide one. The right to a safe, legal abortion is similarly intrinsic to human rights.

Kristian Doty implies that the right of a fetus to live should supersede my right to determine what I do with my body. I disagree.

Kimberly Stein
Sophomore
English, Spanish