If you are a Republican, conservative or otherwise opposed to government health care and abortion, this column isn’t really for you. In fact, if you read it, you may suddenly start liking this whole government takeover of health care thing.

The intent here is to give liberals something to think about.

National Public Radio was keeping me company on a recent drive to Scottsburg, and it was the British Broadcasting Corporation’s News Hour on air. The discussion centered around a young male, who had, since her earliest memory and mother’s observation, identified as a female.

As she neared puberty, she was distraught to the point of suicidal at the thought of her body so radically turning against her. She desperately wanted to take drugs that effectively block puberty for those struggling with such gender identity issues.

I thought to myself, “those liberal Brits. Their health care probably pays for this. People here would throw a fit about young people even having these drugs.”

Shows how much I know. Much of the point of their story was to encourage Britain to allow these drugs for people under the age of 16.

By 16, it’s generally too late to stop puberty, but the prescribing of drugs to anyone under that age is prohibited by the governments’ socialized health care system.

In the U.S.? There’s no prohibition on such drugs; the decision is between doctor and patient, rather than majority rule; and private insurers often pick up the tab.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel, generally, about artificially blocking puberty. However, hearing this young girl describe her feelings in her own words was compelling. If someone is in such anguish and wants only freedom, give it to her.

It’s impossible to avoid such heart-wrenching and denied pleas for freedom occurring under any increasingly government-controlled health care system.

We are seeing a fight over a similar situation heating up in Congress now. Abortion is turning into a major issue in the health care reform legislation being created. It has been long-standing policy that public funds cannot be used for abortions, and Republicans and pro-life Democrats are insisting that language be included in any reform legislation to ensure that policy continues.

Such language was included in the legislation recently passed in the House, but many liberal representatives say they won’t vote for a final bill that still contains that prohibition.

The concern for the pro-life folks is this: Though existing law prohibits public funding of abortion, without explicit prohibition for paying for insurance that covers such procedures, a loophole may be created that results in such funding.

The concern for liberals and other pro-choice individuals is that many private insurance policies do cover abortion, but if those policies are to be available in the new insurance marketplace that is to be created — or paid for with subsidies for people unable to afford insurance — and abortion funding is prohibited, those companies now offering abortion coverage will stop offering it.

Liberals already have been in a bad spot with this, choosing bigger government over reproductive freedom for the poor for years. Poor women covered by Medicaid are those most likely to be put in dire straights by an unplanned pregnancy and those most unlikely to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket.

The new legislation — which must contain prohibitive language to get needed moderate Democrats on board — will extend this lack of access to abortion to the nonpoor who still cannot afford an abortion without insurance coverage of the procedure.

Our current health care market which we’re told is such a mess, is largely government-controlled already. Government is the largest single consumer of health care, and as such, it drives much of the market. The only exception to this are discretionary procedures, such as elective cosmetic surgery, which is a luxury market.

When it comes to regular standards of care, providers conform with government requirements in order to receive reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. Besides insurance companies dropping abortion coverage, we also will see even fewer abortion providers when they can only serve those who can afford to pay the costs themselves. Government will continue to drive the market, but it’s influence will be increased.

You cannot pretend to still live in a representative, democratic Republic if you pay no attention to the wishes of the people. There is not much support for public funding of abortion. In fact, asking people who believe abortion is murder — truly not a radical position considering what the procedure involves — to finance such a heinous act in unconscionable.

I, personally, am morally opposed to abortion in almost all situations. It is generally a selfish, irresponsible and disgusting choice, and any woman making it for purely selfish, shallow reasons is reprehensible.

I also believe there are rare instances in which I can only be grateful I’m not the one making a gut-churning, incredibly personal decision, and for that reason, and a few others, there should be no legal prohibition for the procedure.

There are some matters that simply cannot and should not ever be subject to a committee decision or majority rule. The only way to avoid this is a separation of medical decisions and state. You cannot have such separation with government-ran health care.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran almost always identifies herself as female. However, her first name does come in handy when the presumption of maleness might matter. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com