Roe v. Wade guarantees a woman the right to have an abortion, but I resent my tax money being used to pay for any part of that procedure.
That's what will happen now that the United States Supreme Court ruled today that a Missouri prisoner cannot be prevented from having an abortion and that she will be transported to the abortion clinic on the taxpayers' dime.
It is no secret to anyone who knows me that I am strongly pro-life, so I am not thrilled with the prospect of any abortion, much less one for which my tax money is being used.
According to the Associated Press story, Governor Matt Blunt criticized the court decision, saying it was "highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."
The AP article says the woman, whose name is not given, is at least four months pregnant and is anxious and depressed. Well, think about that. How many women in prison are not anxious and depressed?
Of course, the woman was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. "Today, they said no more delay. It confirmed that a woman doesn't give up her right to terminate a pregnancy once she walks in a prison," Talcott Camp, one of the ACLU lawyers, says in the AP article.
The fact that this decision came on a unanimous vote is frightening.
26 comments:
You need to get a life, dude.
I agree with you Randy 100%!
I'm shocked that an educated man like yourself wouldn't do the math before going on about taxpayer dollars being used in this case. How many tax dollars would be used for the labor and delivery charge? What about the doctor that would tend to her for the term of her pregnancy? What about the tax dollars used when the child is put into the foster care system? Come on Randy, abortion clinic transportation is much cheaper than the alternatives. I'm shocked that you agree with Matt Blunt about anything, especially a woman's right to choose. It's not about tax dollars. It's about abortion. Pro-life or pro-choice, it's the law and the court is right.
How wrong can the previous post be? First, we taxpayers are footing the bill to KILL an innocent life. I find it so disturbing that liberals and the ACLU will fight to keep a convicted murderer out of the electric chair while also fighting to kill innocent children. There are thousands of people waiting to adopt so your foster care argument is garbage.
A few doctor's visits and the delivery of human life is not that expensive...definately not worth killing an innocent child.
get your facts right. the st louis paper says prisoner is borrowing money from friends to pay for the abortion so your precious tax money can be used to keep blunt living in two residences. i also hope all you pro-lifers out there are as strongly against this illegal war as you are against a person's right to choose. we have already spent some $200 billion on this that we don't have (and rising) and lost some 2,000 military lives (and rising) with no end in sight; not to mention all the tens of thousand innocent iraqui lives that have been lost. also question to previous post; how many unwanted children have you adopted lately?
What is being paid for is transportation and guards so this prisoner can have what essentially is an elective medical procedure.
So how many of you "Pro Lifer's" have adopted a "crack baby" already?
I wrote the previous post talking about adoption. I am fortunate enough to be a parent to three of my own children. Some are not as fortunate. They are not able to become pregnant....for a variety of reasons. They are the people that sit on waiting lists, and in a lot of cases end up adopting foreign children.
So typical of a liberal to realize they are losing the argument and quickly change topics..."what about this 'illegal' war?" You're wrong about that and you might want to check your spelling on "Iraqui"...no "u" in there. One place you will find a "u" is in A-C-L-U, the anti-american scum that are ruining this country.
Don't you have a "save this convicted cop-killer from the death penalty" rally to get to?
I don't want any of my tax dollars connected to killing a baby. I know kids who have been adopted and I can say they are thankful for their life.
That's what I was wondering. How many people who responded on here in favor of abortion are thankful that their OWN LIFE wasn't aborted.
The list of things that I don't want my tax dollars to pay for is long.
Star Wars revisited and failing yet again for starters...
Halliburton's excesses without services provided in Iraq for another...
the "faith-based" charities that are going to find themselves completely overwhelmed with needs that they don't have the knowledge, facilities, funds, or staff to meet...
state tax dollars being diverted away from education to MoDot...
I could go on but I won't.
As adults ...at least theoretically, we all have things that when we see our tax dollars going to support them it just really rankles and irritates. Nevertheless, we get over it enough to pay our taxes, write letters or call our "representatives", and vote at the proper time. It's called a democracy.
As a liberal Democrat I don't want tax dollars going to this either. I don't care if it is just minimal support. In full disclosure I am not 100% "pro-choice" nor am I 100% "pro-life."
Come on, can you really come up with nothing better to call the ACLU than anti-american? Or to stereotype about the dirty liberals? Not going to get into the debate itself, but if you're going to argue do it with decency.
And actually, I think the person who brought up the Iraq war was pointing out how if it's a fetus, it's a life that desperately needs saving, but if it's those dirty towel-heads then let them all die, whether they're innocent or not. Or that seems to be a common view.
Why is she in jail, how did she get pregnant? Are these questions we should be asking before casting judgement? You sound much like a misogynist to me.
As has been pointed out, PRIVATE money is paying for the abortion. I'm sure private money would foot the bill for transportation, but I don't think the prison would let a friend of hers take her to and bring her back from the appointment.
Again, how many of you pro lifers are against the death penalty and the war? If not, call yourself whay you really are, anti womens choice.
Why should it be "anyone's choice" to murder a baby?
The assertion that pro-life people who support the war and capital punishment is laughable. As has been pointed out, liberals fight to keep the murderers alive and the innocent children dead.
And why is a man forced to pay child support if the woman delivers the child, but given no choice in her decision to have an abortion.
What I AM AGAINST is the fact that a woman can abort a child that the father wants to live. You should not be able to have it both ways.
It's called "responsibility for your actions." It's the woman's responsibility to take the necessary precautions to NOT get pregnant if her choice would be to have an abortion. An abortion is NOT taking responsibility. It is forcing an innocent life to PAY for the woman's irresponsibility. As far as the man paying "child support"...that would be taking responsibility for his actions.
simply put....randy turner and the rest of the so-called "pro-life" group should really be called "pro-control"....antiabortion isnt about saving a life (if that were true, every man would be guilty of murder for spilling his seed)it is about controlling women.
abortion = a woman controlling a baby's right to live.
The abortion issue is a matter of religious belief PERIOD! The "pro-lifers" choose to believe human life begins at conception. Fine. I would not tell them how to believe; neither should they tell others how to believe. "Pro-choicers" believe HUMAN life begins at birth (at breathing "the breath of life". Read Genesis 2:7). Yes, the embryo/fetus is "alive", just as a dog or cat is "alive". The difference is when does the embryo "get a SOUL". We still have "separation of church and state" (barely) and the govt. should stay out of religious issues. No one should be forced to have an abortion just as no one should be denied an abortion. It is called: CHOICE.
"Pro-life" slogan #1 IT'S A CHILD, NOT A CHOICE My slogan: [picture of acorn] IT'S NOT AN OAK TREE
"Pro-life" slogan #2 ABORTION STOPS A BEATING HEART My slogan: SO DOES HUNTING
Randy, you may not want your tax dollars to pay for abortion - well, I don't want my tax dollars to pay for WAR!
So you say abortion is a "religious belief." Then it is safe to say according to "your" thinking that WAR is also a religious belief. So in other words, you are not religious when it comes to abortion but you ARE religious when it comes to war. Hmmmmmmmmm
both of you should have been aborted IMHO
You must be a murderer.
To anonymous of 8:22 AM. YES, I AM religious when it comes to abortions - obviously you did not read the religious basis for my beliefs - let me reiterate: Genesis 3:7 AND, I am religiously against war. Do you think you can find anyplace in the New Testament which would indicate Jesus would advocate war?
Excuse me - my typographical mistake. It is Genesis 2:7
Post a Comment