Feinstein and Abortion Subsidies

Worried that proposed health-care “reform” measures would somehow divert your tax money to help fund abortions? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) has this response to your concerns: “Please.”

In an interview with CNS News in which she was asked if it was morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion, Feinstein argued the following:

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.

When asked again, she replied with the following:

Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.

So, her argument seems to be that since taxpayers already pay for many things they don’t morally agree with, it’s alright to add yet another item to that list. And that’s the logic of a statist. Nevermind the individual religious or property rights of the taxpayers — or the Constitution for that matter.

It might have been wise for the reporter to again follow up with the senator by asking her something like this: “Exactly which part of the Constitution permits Congress to take money from one American and use it to subsidize a medical procedure for another American?” A good guess would be that she would then either attempt to twist the wording and/or meaning of the Constitution to fit her objectives or just simply blow the question off.

She may want to take a tip from the playbook of her fellow member of Congress from California, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi replied with this gem when asked in October by a CNS reporter to explain what part of the Constitution gave Congress the authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”. She then shook her head. Her spokesman later reiterated the point with the following statement:

You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.

Moral of the story: Don’t question members of Congress; they know better than you. Forget the details of that pesky Constitution.

4 Responses to Feinstein and Abortion Subsidies

  1. Joe Gehring says:

    You may not like using your tax dollars to fund abortions, but its cheaper than funding welfare, food stamps, orphanages, foster programs, homeless shelters, etc… If we can cut back on the number of children that are either unwanted or unable to be cared for, we may be able to cut down on the growing number of uninsured that this program is designed to help, and maybe sometime in the future we can get rid of the need to fund all of these programs.

    • Adam Fowler says:

      So those who believe abortion is murder should be willing to pay to abort (murder) the kids before they are born just to save money later? Good luck convincing pro-lifers that would be the better option.

  2. Kerry Beaty says:

    Adam,
    Another great job!
    THanks for putting a proper perspective on these
    moral issues that mean so much to many of us.
    Your work and research are a blessing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: