Opting Out of Opt-Out

This week, Harvard Right to Life (HRL) tabled various dining halls to publicize a University policy that allows students to opt out of paying the portion of their health services fee that funds elective abortions. The University Health Services (UHS) fee policy, as specified in the 2002-2003 Guide to UHS. allows students who send a note explaining their “strong moral objections to sharing the cost of elective abortions” to receive a $1.09 refund. HRL is calling attention to the policy as a means for students to take a principled stand against abortion.

While some pro-choice student group members fear that the opt-out will harmfully threaten the existence of abortion services, the meager $1.09 from each of 101 students—the most that have ever opted out of this charge—is unlikely to impact the affordability of this service. The problem with the opt-out stipulation is that it is patently unfair and inherently favors a pro-life stance over other moral concerns.

There are no rebates available for other students on campus who morally oppose services offered by UHS and programs offered by the University. Students who do not subscribe to modern medicine for religious reasons cannot opt out of their health services fee. Similarly, vegetarian and vegan students who believe that slaughtering animals is morally reprehensible cannot receive rebates for their share of the meat purchased for the dining halls.

No student agrees with every policy of the University, but efforts to change questionable services should not be leveraged by withdrawing funds. To preserve the efficacy of programs and services at Harvard, the University should not validate any of these requests—doing so with every group creates a slippery slope of pandering that is unreasonable and unsustainable.

Pacifists cannot opt out of the portion of their taxes that is allotted for the military in an effort to morally oppose war. Neither should pro-life students be able to opt out of a portion of the Health Services fee as a means of championing their stance. UHS should reform its policy to preserve fairness and HRL should seek other measures to express their moral opposition to abortion.

Dissent: The Moral Opt-Out

University Health Services (UHS) deserves applause for its sensitivity, and Harvard Right to Life deserves praise for its informative campaign concerning a student’s right to opt-out of abortion fees. Citizens should not be coerced to pay a tax to fund an activity they find immoral. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking—as the Staff asserts, students pay taxes, insurance money and dining hall fees. But for an issue as contentious as abortion—where UHS has clearly discerned the price, $1.09, to fund what many consider murder—students should be afforded the opportunity to express their morality through opting-out.

—Travis R. Kavulla ’06