Ritter’s pro-life pose unmasked
By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com)
Governor Ritter announced in his state-of-the-state speech that he intends to return funding to Planned Parenthood for “pregnancy prevention and family planning programs.” Nationwide, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion providers, receives some $272 million in tax payer funds annual under Title X of the Public Health Service Act for “family planning and reproductive health.” The program, enacted in 1970, funnels state and federal taxpayer funds to public and private agencies for birth control, STD testing and other activities. Such entities can even provide “neutral” information on abortion which seems like an opportunity for some to expand business.
In 1999, the Owens administration blocked funding for Planned Parenthood when an audit revealed that the organization was subsidizing abortion with tax payer funds, a clear violation of the Colorado Constitution. This year, Ritter intends to return the subsidies. While taxpayer funding for abortion is the big issue, no one seems to be asking why tax payers are paying for contraception. I’m more than willing to buy someone food or emergency housing, but if a guy can’t afford the $5 for a box of condoms maybe he shouldn’t be having sex. Maybe he should be out looking for a job instead. If I have to pay for somebody to have sex, maybe others should pay for my hobbies. I could use a new pair of skis. But I digress…
Ritter’s support for Planned Parenthood casts doubt on his commitment to the sanctity of human life. He isn’t the only Democrat to fail the first test of authenticity. Several self-identified pro-life Democrat congressmen fresh from election victories failed to vote pro-life when the first opportunity arose earlier this year.
Talking pro-life isn’t the same as actually standing up for the civil rights of unborn children. Regardless of moderate talk, both top Democrat presidential contenders – Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – support the taxpayer funding for abortion and the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure. Each received a 100% rating from NARAL, the powerful abortion lobby. Warm smiles and conciliatory language won’t change that.
As the American public grows increasingly squeamish about abortion-on-demand, harsh feminist rhetoric doesn’t resonate as well. Even the most ardent abortion supporter wants to seem a little sensitive. In the end, though, actions speak louder than words.
The author can be reached at John@BackBoneAmerica.net
Personally, I loathe the concept of faux-Republicans like Krista Kafer trying to tell others what to do, especially when she isn’t carrying the freight. If you don’t want to have an abortion, Krista, then don’t have one.
As far as partial-birth abortion is concerned, if a doctor offers it as an option, then you should have that option. I was persuaded by the story of ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, whose wife gave birth to an anencephalic baby. The doc at Walter Reed offered her the option of a PBA, and advised his wife that she was risking her life by carrying the baby to term. While I have no moral problem with her doing that, I have an enormous moral problem with busybodies like Krista compelling others to risk their lives on account of their bizarre religious views.
Why can’t Republicans stay out of other people’s bedrooms?
by Suitably Appalled | Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 | 9:45 amSuitably Appalled:
Bizarre religious views? Great spin. Typical.
Abortion is a religious issue only if you ignore simple science. An unborn human has distinct dna from the moment of conception making it a unique member of the human species. From that instant, the creature requires nothing from its environment but nutrition and shelter. Abortion proponents can only persuade when they introduce into the civic discussion the (red herring) philosophical question of when life begins and if they rely on the legal fiction of a human not being a “person” as the latter term is used in the Constitution.
Yes, pro-lifers are trying to tell others what to do: don’t kill people. And if someone doesn’t want to make a baby (i.e., “risk their lives”), don’t have sex.
If a woman chooses to take the risk of getting pregnant, she should no more have the option of killing the child than the father does.
Thank you, Krista, for sharing this bit of information about Governor Ritter.
by Matt | Thursday, Feb 14, 2008 | 8:44 am