Viewpoints: More Babies Will Be Harmed Than Saved From The Ban On Fetal Tissue Research; Patients Need Strong Incentives To Consider Health Care Prices
Editorial pages focus on these health topics and others.
Los Angeles Times:
Trump’s Fetal Tissue Research Ban Will Hurt Many More Babies Than It 'Saves'
The Trump administration this week made good on its threats to clamp down on the use of tissue derived from aborted fetuses in federally funded medical research, cancelling a $2-million-a year contract with the University of California San Francisco for HIV research. The government said it will reject future projects that seek federal funding through the National Institutes for Health.This is nothing more than an anti-scientific sop to the religious right, which sees fetal tissue research as another front in the war on abortion. But barring fetal tissue research will hurt more babies than it will save. In fact, it won’t save any babies at all, because abortion is a constitutionally protected right that will continue regardless of these rules. (6/7)
Bloomberg:
Even Abortion Opponents Should Support Fetal Tissue Research
No fetuses will be saved by the Trump administration’s move this week to cut off funding for research on fetal tissue. In a story appearing Wednesday in Science magazine, anti-abortion activists were quoted saying they were elated to see the cancellation of research that could “destroy human lives,” but they have it backward. The canceled research could have saved lives, and it would not have destroyed any. That is a statement of fact, no matter where you stand on the question of when life begins. Women aren’t choosing to have abortions because they want to provide tissue that could help medical researchers. Fetal tissue research was only making use of tissue that otherwise would have been incinerated. (Faye Flam, 6/6)
The Wall Street Journal:
Shop Till Medical Costs Drop
In an effort to bring down the costs of medical care, the Trump administration wants to make prices visible to patients, and it’s moving aggressively to make that happen. Last year President Trump signed a legal requirement barring pharmacy gag clauses under Medicare Part D plans. Those clauses prohibited pharmacists from volunteering that a medication may be less expensive than an insurance copay if purchased for cash—as was the case more than 20% of the time. (Scott W. Atlas, 6/6)
The Washington Post:
Medicare-For-All Is Political Suicide For Democrats
Medicare-for-all is bad policy for the country and bad politics for the Democratic Party. The Democratic nomination for president shouldn’t go to anyone who supports it, and Medicare-for-all shouldn’t be in the party’s 2020 platform. If we Democrats become the party of Medicare-for-all, advocating that every U.S. citizen is forced into a government-run health-insurance program, President Trump will be reelected and Republicans will control both houses of Congress — ensuring that today’s health-care system will be endangered by renewed GOP attacks. (John Delaney, 6/6)
USA Today:
2020 Democrats Should Stop Saying Education And Health Are Care Rights
I'd like every American to be guaranteed health care, higher education and meaningful employment — things some Democratic candidates for president frequently refer to as "rights." Trouble is, these are not rights, and to frame them as such is counterproductive to good causes. (Peter Funt, 6/6)
The Washington Post:
Killing The ‘Cadillac Tax’ Would Throw Our Health Care Even More Out Of Whack
We've read it before, but it bears repeating: Bipartisan political support is often a necessary condition of good policy, but it’s never a sufficient one. Consider the House supermajority, made up of Democrats and Republicans favoring repeal of the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans, which would otherwise take effect in 2022. Supporters filed a bill in January, and, taking advantage of a new House rule, on May 21 they filed a motion that allows for accelerated action on the measure after 25 legislative days. Depending on the vagaries of the House calendar, this could force at least a committee vote by summer’s end. (6/6)
The Washington Post:
More Americans Were Shot To Death By March 6 This Year Than Died On D-Day
A 19-year-old in Delaware, a 25-year-old in Columbus, Ohio, a 33-year-old in California, and a 64-year-old in Indiana. They are among the 29 people fatally shot in the United States on March 6. Meaning that any one of them might have been the shooting death that pushed the year’s total past the number of deaths suffered by American forces during the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. (Philip Bump, 6/6)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
'Heartbeat' Law Fight Also Points To Sex Ed, Birth Control Issues
Ivey offered her assessment to a bank of television cameras after signing into law a bill that bans doctors from performing abortions during any stage of pregnancy, punishable by up to 99 years in prison. The legislation, which passed May 14, is the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country and is likely to be struck down by the courts. Whether you agree with a total ban on abortion or not, it’s hard for me to fathom any woman believes abortion should be used as a form of birth control. It shouldn’t and under no circumstance. (Bonds Staples, 6/6)
The Washington Post:
Abortion Is Set To Be A Huge Issue In 2020
During one of his debates with John Kerry in 2004, President George W. Bush was asked what kind of justices he’d appoint to the Supreme Court in a second term, and gave what at first sounded to some like an odd reply. He wouldn’t appoint a justice, Bush said, who would issue a ruling like “the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.” What a universally condemned decision from 1857 had to do with anything was unclear, until it was pointed out that in the antiabortion movement, Roe v. Wade is often compared to Dred Scott. (Paul Waldman, 6/6)
