Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Coming Soon

Townhall.com ^ | July 1, 2009 | Jillian Bandes

[Kaslin]

When Congress gets back from its 4th of July, an important Subcommittee will make a decision that could impact taxpayer funded-abortions for years to come.

The Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, headed by Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), will vote on whether or not to include legislation that would permit government-funded abortions in the District of Columbia as long as they were paid for by local taxes and not federal funds.

President Obama is directly responsible for the change, as wording in the “Dornan Amendment” was altered through a direct budget recommendation that came from his office. The Dornan Amendment has prohibited any taxpayer funding of abortions since 1996, but Obama would change that by adding the word “federal” before the word “funds” in this section of the Amendment, thereby permitting “local” funds to be used:

None of the [Federal] funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Joy Yearout communications director for the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, was hopeful that the Subcommittee would reverse Obama’s directive.

“The House Committee on Appropriations still has time to restore the Dornan Amendment at next week’s hearing,” she said. “Americans overwhelmingly oppose funding for abortion on-demand, and tax dollars spent in our nation’s capital should respect the consciences of taxpayers.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, another anti-abortion group, estimated that 1,000 more abortions would be performed in the District of Columbia if the revisions to the Dornan Amendment were allowed to go through. She spoke at a press conference last week along with Republican Reps. Jean Schmidt (Ohio), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Mary Fallin (Okla.).

Fallin said Obama's proposal "represents a gigantic step in the wrong direction.”

“His plan will increase the total number of abortions performed in our nation’s capitol and allow minors to receive taxpayer-funded abortions without parental consent,” she said.

The Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government is scheduled to vote on the Amendment on July 7. If no change is made to the bill at that time, it’s possible that an objection could be raised when the bill hits the House floor.

[Vaquero]

Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Coming Soon

followed by Taxpayer-Funded assisted suicide...

welcome to our national nightmare......

[DooDahhhh]

WELL, Soros said we had too many folks on earth so guess this is a fall out of it.

[Vaquero]

I loathe Soros, his methods and his elitist marxism.

but I agree and disagree with the population thing...

we in the west, are not breeding fast enough to maintain our populations....

...that in my opinion is a good thing. We have found ways to produce food enough to feed everyone in the world...so what happens when we do this....the world (and we are mostly talking about the 3rd world) overpopulates to utilize all the new food supplies....

what we in the west need to do is to lower the populations and then prevent the 3rd world from encroaching on our wealth...we don't need the hordes of locust moving HERE.

let them figure out how to produce their own surpluses.

I preferred America when it was 200 Million people and 100 million would be more than enough. we just have to prevent the human tides from elsewhere from coming in....

Just my $0.02.

[Dudoight]

Isn’t it a bit twisted? Government funded extermination. Just wait until ‘universal health care’, as legal euthanasia will be enforces by the rationing of meds, procedures, appointments, etc.

Yet we put all sorts of money to save ‘endangered’ species.

Soon, the citizens of this country will be the endangered species.

[RebelTXRose]

It may be someone’s CHOICE to commit abortion, but tax dollars shouldn’t be paying for it.

[Westbrook]

“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.

“Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered what the surplus is and where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. O God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”

~ The Ghost of Christmas Present
~ from “A Christmas Carol”, by Charles Dickens

[Vaquero]

Isn’t it a bit twisted? Government funded extermination. Just wait until ‘universal health care’, as legal euthanasia will be enforces by the rationing of meds, procedures, appointments, etc.

Oh I agree, the government is criminal......and btw if we didnt let the hoards of locust just fill up the country, we would not have the 300 million...but more like 200 million.

and you also have to blame the republicans for bringing in cheap labor for the businessmen to utilize.

[Dr. Sivana]

what we in the west need to do is to lower the populations and then prevent the 3rd world from encroaching on our wealth...we don't need the hordes of locust moving HERE.

...

I preferred America when it was 200 Million people and 100 million would be more than enough. we just have to prevent the human tides from elsewhere from coming in....

People are not locusts. What you stated here is right out of the Margaret Sanger Birth Control League playbook. It is not compatible with freedom or justice. It is compatible with One World Government.

You are going to have a hard time describing why we are overpopulated in any terms more rational than "I liked it better when..."

[Vaquero]

when they come from elsewhere to suck on the American teat they are locust...especially the illegal ones that will soon be validated and nice and legal by zer0bummer....

There was a time up till the early 20th century that we needed immigration...we don’t anymore...

all I am saying is CLOSE THE DOOR!! NOW!!

Margaret Sanger was a dirtbag. No I dont buy the euthanasia thing, and abortion is murder That is criminal..but westerners don’t breed like the 3rd world...and it is not written in stone that we should take the worlds excess. I would be happy as a clam if we don’t have our wild places despoiled more than is necessary to feed and fuel the Americans that are here and not the rest of the world. You want to drill in Anwar? fine we need that....we dont need, however someone elses problem.

[highlander_UW]

So liberals are just happy with their genocide, they want to make me pay for it as well?! Evil pigs all.

[Dr. Sivana]

but westerners don’t breed like the 3rd world

You might be surprised. I know three families in my church that have more than ten children, and a bunch more that have more than six.

I do appreciate the important distinction between controlling one's borders and telling other countries how many children they can have. But likening people in the third world to animals (the word "breed") and locusts really rubs me the wrong way. You list your state as New York. I don't know if it is New York City or elsewhere. But if you are near NYC, everything seems more crowded than it actually is in the rest of the country. Big, centralized governments LIKE people to congregate in cities, where they are more easily controlled. Albania went so far as to require farmers to live in cities and commute to their own farms!

Population growth has not busted China or India (their populations won't shrink from their own population control programs for another 30 years when the people from before those measures die off.) Most of the world's most densely populated nations (Taiwan/Free China, S. Korea, Netherlands) are also among the most developed. Many of the poorest countries are among the emptiest. Niger, Somalia and Zimbabwe are all practically empty.

[Vaquero]

Population growth has not busted China or India (their populations won't shrink from their own population control programs for another 30 years when the people from before those measures die off.) Most of the world's most densely populated nations (Taiwan/Free China, S. Korea, Netherlands) are also among the most developed.

My idea of America is wide open spaces, not smelly crowds....I want to hunt the Rockies or Missouri Breaks or the Adirondacks or southern farms and old plantations...or the great southwestern deserts, pacific northwest, or the wilderness of Alaska, without being shoulder to shoulder with crowds. The cities are what has caused the liberal vote that has gotten us in the trouble we are in today....if asian crowding, the Indian Caste system or Dutch legalization of prostitution/drugs is your idea of development....you can have it...but do it elsewhere and don't spoil America.

[Dr. Sivana]

My idea of America is wide open spaces, not smelly crowds....I want to hunt the Rockies or Missouri Breaks or the Adirondacks or southern farms and old plantations...if asian crowding, the Indian Caste system or Dutch legalization of prostitution/drugs is your idea of development

Using that argument, of course, maybe the Americans Indians were right, as that's what they wanted. The fact is the places you mention ARE empty. People move to Charlotte or Denver or Houston. They don't move to the Adirondacks or the Rockies or the Missouri breaks. The whole midwest is filled with ghost towns.

This is the same argument that the enviro-nuts use. I'm sorry, but I will not think of any of God's children as locusts, and while I certainly do not approve of illegal immigration, closing the door will make us grow old and wither like Europe. My point regarding India, Asia and the Dutch was not that we should emulate them. It simply meant that population density does not equal poverty. My other examples of Zimbabwe and Somalia show that lack of density does not equal wealth.

We would all perhaps want a beautiful Garden of Eden if it would be possible. But it is not. We have to be moral and just. The kinds of laws it would take to bring America to 100 million or 200 million would be odious.

[Vaquero]

I grew up in NYC. everywhere we have that kind of crowding we have liberal leftist trash.

Look at former conservative bastions like Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, and more.....there is no doubt citification causes a swing to the left.

Europe is not whithering it is burgeoning with MUSLIMS.

we need to block the islamification of America.

[Dr. Sivana]

we need to block the islamification of America.

Blocking the Islamification of America, and shutting the door completely are two different questions.

I do find that most of the people who think the country is too crowded live in big cities, where they in a sense choose to be crowded. I was born and spent most of my life in Connecticut, but have spent a lot of time in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and presently live in a rural location. I actually prefer the suburbs, but believe this is a better way to raise my children.

When I said Europe was withering, I was referring to the native European population, whom the Muslims are taunting with jokes about retirement homes on the African coast as the native Europeans age out and the Muslims take over. When the average number of children per native Italian, Spanish or French woman hovers around 1.2, and is barely at replacement even in Poland and Ireland, the vacuum WILL be filled from somewhere.

Actual police enforcement of laws deserves a place on both continents to prevent illegal immigration. Sane laws should encourage immigration from those whose cultures are compatible with the host's countries or are most likely to be able to adapt without setting up a parallel society.

It is also important to be able to show people that traditional western values are better. It would be very difficult to "convert" a Muslim on moral values in a place like the Netherlands with prostitutes of every variety selling themselves with state licensing, every accommodation given to those who are homosexual perverts, euthanasia and subsidized abortion on demand including sending abortion boats to countries that have not yet sunk to that barbarism. Unfortunately, these Muslims are likely to think that this is the logical outcome of "western" society, when it is really western society perverted by materialistic relativism (among other things).

New York City had just as many people in the 1940s as it does today. But even most of the poor people had a different attitude. They simply did without, which meant they had fewer clothes, less expensive food, no vacations to speak of, and not much in the way of purchased entertainment. The one indulgence might be booze or cigarettes. They didn't swear much in public, they didn't dress indecently, and they kept their stoops clean. There was comparatively less squalor.

There was a sense of community then that melted away in the '60s. People who came to this country to live, learned the language, and adapted, at least when outside the neighborhood, with the exception of a handful of old-timers who kept to themselves and harmed nobody. At that time, there was a moral consensus about the role of the country and the role of the citizen. That is gone. Islam will appeal to some segments who are trying to fill that vacuum.

[Vaquero]

Blocking the Islamification of America, and shutting the door completely are two different questions.

absolutely not...

When the average number of children per native Italian, Spanish or French woman hovers around 1.2, and is barely at replacement even in Poland and Ireland, the vacuum WILL be filled from somewhere.

There is NO vacuum. you prevent the vacuum by preventing immigration. the big problem europe has is that they opened the door to these people and forgot what their ancestors fought for in the Crusades....their “enlightened” attitude will kill them. I know the Islamic-hordes for what they are, but because europe and America seems to have their heads up their collective a$$e$ and this is one of the reasons we are heading for a civil war in America.

But to say the only way to one-up these people is to breed faster than they, dont look for that to happen. Our only chance is to drive them out....

[Dr. Sivana]

But to say the only way to one-up these people is to breed faster than they, dont look for that to happen. Our only chance is to drive them out....

Having large families is NOT "breeding." Whether you have a healthy disgust for Margaret Sanger or not, that is her rhetoric.

If westerners don't have children, there won't be enough guards to block the entrances, fight the wars, pay the social security, and tend to the hospitals and nursing homes with all of the old people. It is no coincidence that immigration of all kinds spiked about one generation after legalized abortion. Fifty million people are missing. They ARE going to come from somewhere. Even insular Japan, which doesn't particularly cotton to outsiders, and has the natural protection of being an island with no ties to an EU-type structure have imported foreigners for help because they don't have enough people.

[Vaquero]

I came from a 3 kid household, and I in turn have 3 kids, my wife came from a 4 kid household...

that means we are increasing the population.

you can call me what you will (re: Margaret Sanger)....calling names seems to be your thing.

I once in the 60’s had an argument with a leftist professor. I asked him what ever happened with good old rugged individualism...he told me, thats the mentality of those ‘a$$h0les in the pentagon’. I then thought that that would not be such a bad thing. If Sanger had a sanguine point so much for that one point...I don't know as I dont pretend to be a Sanger expert, nor do I care be. She was some sort of Marxist and I am not....

[Dr. Sivana]

you can call me what you will (re: Margaret Sanger)....calling names seems to be your thing.

I didn't call you Margaret Sanger. I said you were using her terminology. You were the one who referred to people as "locusts" and "breeding." That is name-calling.