Religion & Law

Michael agrees (I gather) with the following statement of Cardinal Hume:

?If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it?s needed, she?s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn?t it obvious??

Is the suggestion that, because this observation is "obvious", that the current health-insurance-reform proposal(s) will / might / could reduce abortions and -- putting aside non-abortion-related doubts about the wisdom / efficiency / costs of these proposal(s) -- should / may / must therefore be supported s about the wisdom of the bill?

I agree with Michael that "the facts matter" -- in this and all other debates -- and so I would love to know the answers to questions like, for example, "How does the marginal increase in the number of 'frightened, unemployed 19-year-old(s)' who do not at present have "access to medical care", who know that (several years from now, under the current proposals) '[they] and [their] child[ren] will have access to medical care', and who therefore might choose not to abort their children compare to the marginal increase in the number of women who will abort their children -- and who otherwise might not -- if those abortions are (directly or indirectly) subsidized?"  I do not know the answer to this question.