You might have recently heard about the health care reform bill which passed the House of Representatives approval Saturday. If you know about that, you’re just as likely to have heard of the Stupak amendment which was tacked onto it.

Named after a Democrat representative from Michigan, Bart Stupak, the amendment adds some powerful restrictions for abortion should the bill be signed into law. And boy, has it got some people hot under the collar.

We’ve read the amendment — it’s freely available online, and clocks in at a mere 3 pages long.

The most essential clause of the bill read, “No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

As the editorial board sat in our meeting room, trying to decide our angle, the question inevitably came up:

“So, who is in support of the Stupak amendment?”

There was a moment of hesitation. Abortion is a complicated, emotional issue. On the editorial board, we have those who label themselves conservative, liberal or choose not to apply a label. We have pro-lifers, pro-choicers and those who hang on the fence.

It was understandable that we paused before offering our opinion. But slowly, surely, each hand raised in support.

“Well,” one member said. “There’s a surprise.”

In other words, we’re not really sure what the fuss is about. Some argue that any abortion is too much abortion, and that the entire practice should be outlawed. On the opposite extreme, we have arguments like the one from Dr. Willie Parker of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, stating that if the amendment stands, “we have just set women back 30 years in guaranteed access to safe abortion services,” as quoted by the Los Angeles Times.

We think the amendment does a good job of balancing a hot-button issue with the role of government.

 Although we certainly don’t need a federal entity leaning over our shoulder telling us what’s best for us in every situation, we still think the government should look out for the general welfare of its people.

This doesn’t mean giving handouts — it means ensuring that citizens have access to necessary care so as to promote a healthy, productive society.

That’s really what this is all about. And while the Stupak amendment is not an end-all, be-all solution, we see it as a step in the right direction.

Certainly, the Stupak amendment only focuses on a symptom of the problem, and ignores the contradictory practice of insuring elective prescriptions such as Viagra while denying insurance for many forms of birth control [seen as elective as well by some insurers], but rather than attack the legislation for being imperfect, perhaps we can use its prominence in recent news as a jumping off point for future discussions.

The role of sex education in reducing unplanned pregnancies, the interplay between insurance providers and women’s contraception, the socioeconomic status of the women receiving abortions, their motivations for pursuing the procedure are the things we will not only educate ourselves on as the Stupak amendment continues its trek and coverage, but when we do so, we will contribute more meaningfully to the ongoing debate.

Even if you don’t agree with us or the amendment, we hope this spiel inspires yo to research, voice your opinion and take action.