Recently, there has been a war against women’s reproductive rights. It’s no secret that states like North
Carolina, Oklahoma and Virginia have been proposing more restrictions on
abortions, and while the uproar against these regressive actions are completely
justified, the issue goes beyond the sound bite politics of pro-life or
pro-choice groups.
For example, last week, the federal government announced it
would cut off its funding for Texas’ Women’s Health Program. Texas’ anti-abortion politicians have excluded
Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions, which the federal government
thinks is a violation of the Social Security Act.
Consequently, the
state of Texas sued President Obama’s administration in return over the claim
that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to overstep its bounds
when it is within states’ rights to define “qualified” health care providers –
which, according to the laws of the state Legislature, is providers
unassociated with abortions.
Sound familiar? The old debate has sparked again: state
government vs. federal government. Which
reigns supreme in this case and what would the implications be? Given that the founders didn’t purposefully
choose our complicated, potentially disastrous system of government,
Federalism, (it was more of a necessary evil – a compromise –than a preference)
this conflict between state government and federal government is expected. But the system, despite many possible and
actual dysfunctions, works because the federal government gives states
money. Texas’ case does not seem too
convincing and, since the money comes from the federal government, hopefully
there will be a concession on Texas’ part for the rest of the states as well.
{[['
']]}
']]}