House Votes to Restrict Payments for Abortions - Research Paper Example

Article Response Article response The of the article: Peters, W. Jeremy of the article: House Votes to Restrict Payments for Abortions Thesis: The article does not give a straight stand over the price review issue, but hints out at the side that it is supporting Contribution to the field: Abortion as a woman’s right issue has been the subject of debate in many developed economies with others seeing it as the termination of life at will because it has remained a personal choice. The obvious mass psychological effect developed from this view is that abortion is equal to murder and that no one should get to decide on this whether one gets to live other than the creator. The article gives an oversight into how the abortion laws in the USA keep changing through amendments that some women legislators feel is a decision made by men. In this article, Peters of the New York Times discusses the political angle to this debate in terms of the payments associated with accessing abortion services. The implication of this is that the abortion fees charged by clinics are not exorbitant making this service affordable to those that seek it. Therefore, the legislators have taken up this move because the existing policies have been ineffective in achieving the intended course. Further, this article helps readers to understand the actual feel of those involved in policy development as this has now changed from being a health issue into being gender based issue (Peters, 2014). In this regard, the article does not give a straight stand over the price review issue, but hints out at the side that it is supporting. The idea that Peters seems to be supporting in an indirect manner is that matters related to abortion should not have men as the sole party with the most stake. In addition, the author seems to be advocating for the poor women that would want to seek these services because of the hiked abortion payments hence setting the tone for the possibility of them conducting it through quack doctors. In line with this, the author asserts that the focus should not only be on making this service unaffordable, but rather those involved in the policy making process should evaluate all issues surrounding this debate. The author seems to be inclining that women should be at a better position to give validated arguments to the debate as compared to men who may never have experience this challenge (Peters, 2014). Therefore, the article adds value to the championing of women’s rights more than just in the development of policies making this to be a practical approach to this issue. In order to make the information more useful and applicable, the author should have taken a blatant approach rather than focusing readers to guess their supporting side as this could have been more useful to the debate. This means that the author is sitting on the fence and does not want to appear to be inclining more towards one side, which is a non-impactful way of approaching this debate. However, the article does not give a straight stand over the price review issue, but hints out at the side that it is supporting. Method: The article appears to be an analysis of the various opinions given by legislators from various regions within the USA from both the Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives (Peters, 2014). In essence, the article gives the history of the various attempts by the house to restrict abortion related rules further, but also gives the trends in the shifting from the original focus. Moreover, the article is an analysis of why the abortion issue is no longer a health issue, but an infringement on the rights and privileges of women. The heavy inclination portrayed by this is that men are constantly engaging in deciding women issue rather than allowing them to make these decisions for themselves, which is one way of making this debate to fail. Using this as a basis, the article does not give a straight stand over the price review issue, but hints out at the side that it is supporting. Peters (2014) also seems to be analyzing the reasons why the passing of this legislation seeking to impose high taxation on abortion is irrelevant as compared to other pressing matters as unemployment. In a way, the article seems to be analyzing why this arm of government does not have its priorities right in that it should be focusing on matters that affect the larger population rather than this issue that only targets women. The data collection tool used by the author are accurate because they give direct quotes as said by the individuals involved in the debate of the legislation meaning that the source is credible. However, there is a risk in this data collection tool as a person that uttered them may not accept being quoted unless there is recorded evidence. Therefore, the author could have relied on other accurate data collection tool for this article to avoid cases of misquoting or damaging a person’s image. However, the data collection used is comprehensive as it touches on the matters that are relevant to this issue and not to the whole abortion aspect in entirety. Argument: One of the major arguments carried by the article is that men are the ones responsible for making decisions for women, which to some women is demeaning. The other argument is that imposing restrictions on the payments made for abortions is not a priority because the House representatives have much pressing problems to find solutions to such as providing quality and affordable healthcare options to the population (Peters, 2014). The other claim made by democrats is that this bill is an unfair targeting of women especially those from the low-income bracket and those working for the federal governments that may not afford these prices if reviewed. Therefore, the article does not give a straight stand over the price review issue, but hints out at the side that it is supporting. Assumptions: As much as the claims made in the article are valid, there are also assumptions embedded in the article that makes it to be non-responsive to purpose. For one, the author assumes that many quoting the words of others do not necessarily show the stand that they support, which is wrong. In essence, the quotes used set the tone for the author’s feelings and ideas without having to make direct references from self to communicate views. The other assumption made by the author is that the shaping of this bill is an unfair targeting of women simply because those supporting its enactment in its current form are men (Peters, 2014). This means that the author could be assuming that not every woman would support this bill, which is wrong because there could also be a significant number of men that are support of this motion. Using this as a basis, the author seems to have passed judgment over this issue, which could be sending out the wrong signals to the members of public and the readers. Reference Peters, J.W. (2014). House Votes to Restrict Payments for Abortions. The New York Times. Retrieved on 24 Feb. 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/us/politics/house-votes-tighter-restrictions-on-federal-payments-for-abortions.html?_r=1 Read More