TO THE EDITOR:
In “Explain abortion money,” (Aug. 31) the DTH expressed the following sentiment about the lack of transparency surrounding the premiums: “Abortion is a contentious issue, and allowing students choice is the right thing to do.”
It is upsetting that the DTH employs “right to choose” language to portray this opt-out policy as a benign compromise, yet fails to acknowledge that one student’s “right to choose” to contribute to funds for a legal medical procedure may limit another’s access to the full range of reproductive health care resources.
Health insurance reduces individuals’ medical expenses by allowing large groups of people to collectively pool their risk, and I’m concerned that this opt-out policy might negatively impact the availability and quality of abortion care by reducing the number of people who contribute to this pool. Framing the opt-out policy as one that merely offers an alternative for students with moral oppositions to abortions ignores the fact that this same policy might also restrict the right of another student to choose and receive an abortion at a reasonable cost.
While I agree with the editorial board’s point that transparency surrounding the financial details of the plan should be prioritized, I’m frustrated with the editorial’s overall sentiment that UNC’s inattentiveness to detail primarily affects those opposed to the coverage.
Let’s ask the difficult questions about exactly how funding gets allocated, but let’s not pretend that verifying that insurance dollars from those who choose not to fund comprehensive health care for women is the only finance-related issue at stake.
Robyn Levine
Senior
Nutrition
