Symptom of the Disease: Federal funding of abortion (5)

Back in April during budget votes, Senate Democrats and a few Republicans got together to block an amendment to the main budget bill to ensure health care providers would not be forced to abort babies and violate their moral and religious convictions. What do you think about taxpayer funded abortion in upcoming health care legislation?

Keep that vote in mind as we dig more into federal health care legislation that would – if passed – completely change the best health care system in the world; not for the better. You can read more about the April vote here, and today Gateway Pundit brings this subject back into focus after President Obama’s meet and greet with Pope Benedict where Obama promised to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.

Gateway Pundit flat out lets us know that Obama has lied. His actions certainly do not fit his words.

Why is this a symptom of the disease? Not only is the disease tied to federal government over-reach when it comes to legislation and handing out politically-motivated cash to states and local communities, it’s also about the left’s strategy to move decisions out of the hands of the people and into the hands of those clad in black robes – the judiciary.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did try to explain his position last September on The View which, in my opinion, is the conservative (originalist) position. Roe v. Wade is bad law. The Constitution does not discuss abortion, which means it is an issue that should be left to the states.

This means states may allow abortion, some may limit abortion and others may outlaw abortion. Although I am reluctantly comfortable with allowing the states to make decisions on taxpayer funding of abortion, the left and pro-choice/pro-abortion activists are deathly afraid of allowing the state – and therefore the people – make their own decision on abortion and taxpayer funding for the procedure. They prefer to fight it out in the courts where they are able to design arguments for specific judges sitting on state and federal courts. (This is the same strategy used to force gay marriage on the people.)

Reference the May 15 Gallup poll where 51 percent of Americans call themselves pro-life, and 42 percent pro-life. That’s a good reason for pro-abortion activists to stay with the third branch of government.

With the states making decisions on the legalization of abortion, and possibly funding the procedure, the people are provided a choice if they do not want to support or fund abortion. They can move.

Mark Levin recently wrote that states could be incubators of ideas if the federal government would just get its hands off unconstitutional collected taxpayer funding. Health care, education, school vouchers, housing support, agriculture funding, and money for art and music programs funded by states and the people – not by the federal government – can actually drive competition between the states.

What happens today when federal funding is appropriated for use by faith-based organizations? The left freaks out.

What happens when federal funding is appropriated for school vouchers? The left pulls the funding.

What happens when large corporations get federal tax breaks? The left cries foul and insists the middle and lower classes are being crushed by excessive taxes they need to pay as a result of loopholes. … ugh.

Pro-life activists must step up and request the same originalist view – as the left selectively does – across the board and demand the legal abortion debate – not necessarily the moral debate – be dealt with in state legislatures and by referendum.

Power to the people!

As a compainion piece, head over to Michelle Malkin’s blog where earlier today she reminds us of John Holdren’s history. He’s Obama’s science czar, and maybe we all should ask that guy some questions…

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. sammy22 on July 14, 2009 at 5:38 am

    I think the suggestion of moving out of state, if dissatisfied, is simplistic. People have jobs, houses, children, parents, spouses who are pro-choice etc. Then what happens when there are no states to go to? I don't think even Jim would be ready to leave his job.

    I am not in favor of public funding for abortion, but I am pro-choice (a very hard choice to make for SURE).

    • Steve McGough on July 14, 2009 at 6:14 am

      It's not just moving out of state due to the state's abortion legislation, it can be for many other reasons including education, taxes, and entitlement programs. Families and individuals make the decision to move to a different state for many reasons including but certainly not limited to economics.

      Maybe you want a state that provides government funded education. Maybe another state does not provide government funded education. Maybe you want health care, maybe you don't. Think of the fantastic opportunity for competition between the states!

      If you morally object to abortion, how would you feel if you knew tax dollars were going to directly fund abortion procedures? There's no middle ground there, if you have the opportunity to move, you move. THAT is why the federal government should NEVER be funding abortion. Simple as that.

  2. sammy22 on July 14, 2009 at 7:09 am

    @Steve-I don't see simplicity in what you wrote above. Where are all the people who morally object to abortion going? Moving from where your roots are is still a bit more complicated than what you seem to suggest.

    • Steve McGough on July 14, 2009 at 7:32 am

      Sometimes doing the right thing is not easy or simple. I'll use extremes in discussing the abortion point. If Connecticut provided taxpayer funded abortions with no limitations, and Rhode Island ensured zero tax dollars were used to promote or provide abortions, those living in that area who did not want their tax dollars funding abortion would be able to make a choice. When federal dollars are used, there is no choice, other than leaving the country.

      It's NOT just about abortion. I know at least two people who I directly work with who made significant moves out of the northeast (neither easy or simple to do) to get out of Connecticut.

  3. skepticalcynic on July 14, 2009 at 10:20 am

    I've written on this subject on this blog before. I MUST ADMIT, if I was to sit here and REALLY think about that my country is LEGALLY killing babies, and I REALLY AND TRULY think that its murder, there really isn't any TRUTHFUL reason for me to just sit here and cry about it and do NOTHING. I mean the LEAST would be to move. Or take a more action based role. Thats why I have a REAL PROBLEM trying to figure out where I stand when an abortion doctor becomes a casualty. I'm sorry, but thats the truth.

    If you walk by a house, where you KNOW murder is going on every single day, and you KNOW the government is ok with it, what do you do? Really. What does one do? I mean isn't that what people rag at so many Germans for? If you believe abortion is murder isn't it essentially the same thing? I don't know….I'm really torn and feeling some guilt here……

  4. skepticalcynic on July 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Look at that pic in the home page featured section. Really, really look at it. If that ain't human…….neither are you and me.

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.