Floodgates opened by compromise

The University’s decision to not provide mandatory coverage for abortion procedures is discriminatory and is in no way a compromise.

The only thing compromised in the University’s decision is women’s health.

The burden of the additional $60 for abortion coverage is unfair. Group health insurance plans are not intended to offer line-item vetoes for medical procedures we do not need access to or about which we hold some moral disagreement.

For instance, let us imagine that a number of students find meat-eaters’ lifestyle damaging, dangerous, and immoral.

Such a position does not mean that these students have a right to require meat-eaters to pay additional fees for the cardiovascular nightmares that undoubtedly await their morally questionable lifestyle choices.

Of course I am being sarcastic, but the similarity between the fictionalized “radical vegans” I speak about and those who want to restrict women’s access to medical procedures is not a far stretch.


[email protected]