Abortion about money more than morals

In 1975, I served as the expert witness before hearings of the Insurance Department of California (and at later hearings at the Department of Insurance of Illinois and Florida) on the subject of discrimination related to insurance based upon sex, sexual orientation and cohabitation.

John Booth, representing the industry’s lobbying organization Health Insurance Association of America, in his testimony stated that the reason insurance companies don’t cover abortion even though it was a legal operation, was because insurance companies believed that if covered, women would use abortions as a viable method of “birth control.”

The hearing officer, a woman, put Mr. Booth straight that no woman would use abortion as a viable method of “birth control.”

Here it is 37 years later and that thinking still exists, but it is my belief that abortion is a money issue covered up by framing it as a moral issue. For the moment, let’s put the moral issue aside — and one will understand why I feel this is really a money issue made acceptable by covering it as a moral issue.

For example, if two people, one from “pro-life” and one from “pro-choice,” ask you for a donation, who will you give money to if you are a baby furniture manufacturer?

Think about it. Why is there so much being spent to convince you that the issue is moral, not money?

It may be a moral issue, and that’s up to others than me, but it really smells of a hate, and there is a lot of money in hate.

Lloyd M. Levin

Arlington Heights