Your Government: It’s ‘Morally Correct’ to Force Taxpayers to Fund Abortion

By Bob Ellis on December 9th, 2009

CG8B3While Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) may believe the morality of murder is something determined by majority vote, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is not encumbered with such moral ambiguity.

Senator Feinstein knows it’s cool to bilk the taxpayers for money to kill children.

From CNS News:

The health care bill put before the Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) would in fact provide tax dollars to health insurance plans that cover abortion. An amendment to the health care bill sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) that would have prohibited tax dollars from going to insurance plans that cover abortion was defeated yesterday.

As debating the Nelson amendment, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: “Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is.  Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health.  I think she ought to have a policy available to her.

You thought the money you earned was yours to do with as you please.  What were you thinking?!

Just for the record, in South Dakota the kind of abortions Feinsten mentioned make up about 1.7% of all abortions.  The vast majority (83.2%) are done because “The mother did not desire to have the child.”  You really should know what your tax dollars are going to pay for.

Almost on a daily basis, our federal government reminds me of the warning in Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • brianrutledge
    Bob You didn't make it clear and I couldn't find it on the internet. Does the health bill the Senate is proposing say that all abortions will be covered or that only the ones that are a threat to the mothers life should be covered ? Does it specify ?
  • My understanding is that ALL abortions would be covered. In the lexicon of government policy, something is usually understood to be all-encompassing unless specified otherwise (this goes hand in hand with the errant and inverse liberal reading of the Constitution that unless something is specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution, they can do it). Exceptions such as mothers life/health are usually laid out specifically.

    For instance, the Capps Amendment to HR 3200 called for abortion coverage in each of the geographical regions set up under the proposal, and it did not specify the stated reason for the abortion, which in essence means "abortion for any reason."
  • brianrutledge
    That's basically my take as well. Just want to make sure I am not missing anything when I write/call my congressmen/woman.Thanks
  • Thank you for taking the time to do that.
  • dcm
    "...the kind of abortions Feinsten mentioned make up about 1.7% of all abortions. The vast majority (83.2%) are done because 'The mother did not desire to have the child.'”

    And that's oh-so-typical of the whole pro-abortion side: they try to justify 100% of abortions by citing the circumstances of 1% or so. They hardly even try to justify the majority (except with the occasional emotional argument). And of course, they would NEVER accept limiting abortions to the ones that actually fit the circumstances they cite!
  • WXRGina
    This is one of those times when it is dangerous for me to write, because I might say something I really mean.

    Since yesterday when I heard the words of Feinstein and Boxer on the abortion amendment, I have been even more enraged (if that's possible) with this administration and the majority in Congress. These two "women" are purely evil, power-hungry creatures, void of morality, like the rest of the top "leadership," who are insanely high on the strong wine of Babylon, with the taste of their near-total control of us, who they regard as the detestable "masses."

    I'd better stop now.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »