Nan Hayworth*
By Jeffrey Page
During last year’s congressional campaign, Nan Hayworth assured voters that she was a Republican who supports a woman’s right to abortion. Sort of. She says she still is. Sort of. And thus there’s a self-imposed asterisk next to her name.
Now that she’s been in office for about five months, it turns out that if you need an abortion and you can just go ahead and write the check, or if you have private insurance, that’s fine with Hayworth. But she says she has a problem with federal funds being used to pay for elective procedures, including abortions. Women who get such government help likely are not rich, so Hayworth would establish a two-tier system based on how rich a pregnant woman might be.
If you’re of the working poor or on welfare, and you’re pregnant and need an abortion, Hayworth doesn’t want to know about it – or about you. For the record, an ophthalmologist who almost certainly took a pay cut when she went to Congress where the salary is $174,000, Hayworth will never face the dilemma of wishing for an abortion while not having the money to pay for it.
She proved her lack of compassion by voting to add new and stricter restrictions to the Hyde Amendment, the measure that bars the use of federal money for abortions.
In an attempt to cover her tracks, this is what she told the editorial board of the Times Herald-Record: “I am not taking away a woman’s right to choose. But it is her responsibility, or her community’s responsibility, if they have chosen to pay for that procedure in other ways. But it is not a federal government tax responsibility.”
So Hayworth supports a woman’s right to choose – except when she doesn’t. For her to blithely declare that she’s not taking away a woman’s right to choose and then deny that right to women who are not as well off as she is, amounts to the living definition of hypocrisy.
Note to Hayworth: A choice that is beyond a woman’s means is no choice at all.
Hayworth further disgraced herself by also voting to end all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, whose abortion activities are pretty low in number despite what the anti-choice forces in Congress have to say. Factcheck.org, for example, reports that only 10 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients receive abortions, and that abortions represent just 3 percent of the organization’s total services.
So what does Planned Parenthood do in the other 97 percent of its business?
Among Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services are breast examinations, screening for ovarian cancer, birth control, cholesterol testing, blood pressure monitoring, thyroid screening, pregnancy tests, diabetes screening, stop-smoking clinics, anemia testing, administration of flu shots, and such men’s matters as infertility, treatment of urinary tract infections, prostate cancer screening, and treatment of erectile dysfunction.
How can anyone possibly justify cutting funds for these essential services? Especially someone with Hayworth’s medical background.
* Is Hayworth prochoice? Is she not prochoice? Does anyone know?
Jeff can be reached at jeffrey@zestoforange.com.
Tags: Jeffrey Page
June 2nd, 2011 at 6:50 am
it’s the same old, same old. even when abortions were illegal, women who could afford them got them. others went to back alley doctors where they risked their lives. and all the anti choice people should be supporting PP’s efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
* Is Hayworth prochoice? Is she not prochoice? Does anyone know?
I believe I know the answer. She is not prochoice for all women, so therefore I would not call her prochoice at all. She most definitely is anti-Planned Parenthood, so she is anti-choice as for as Family Planning is concerned. Her votes against insurance companies receiving public funds for anything if they also fund abortion in certain cases against suggests she is anti-choice. Perhaps what she is really is prochoice only for wealthy women, and antichoice for everyone else.
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Jim, I think you define her perfectly.
June 4th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
After all the years and all the fights that have been fought you would think this issue should have been put to rest. She should be ashamed!
June 4th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Lenore, thanks for your note. Yes, a rational person might think the battle’s over, but this one appears like it’ll be with us for another hundred years. As far as Hayworth is concerned, I think she’s playing a very cagey political game and gathering support wherever she can find it and holding on to it as a long as she deems necesssary — and thus picking up no true support from anywhere. I wonder how safe her spot in Congress will be at election time next year.