Posts
...hundreds of abortion rights supporters gathered on Capitol Hill Wednesday to call on senators to keep new abortion restrictions out of the health care bill. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., plans to unveil an anti-abortion amendment as early as Thursday that abortions rights supporters inside the Senate and out say they can't support.I've never understood how a government instituted to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could enshrine unlimited abortion of human life as a 'right.' But leave that aside for a moment. This issue highlights the whole problem with activist government: the more involved it is in any area, the more it determines how, when and where 'rights' are exercised. Government funding is the poison pill that permits takeover of any activity. Look at education: only privately funded schools can avoid a cascade of restrictions and requirements. Why would health care be any different?Nelson says he won't vote for the underlying bill without his strong abortion language. But opponents say his amendment doesn't have the votes to pass. The outcome could be critical in determining the fate of President Barack Obama's signature health overhaul agenda...
The language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life. A new government insurance plan couldn't offer abortions, and women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services.
Government exists to keep others from impairing your legitimate exercise of your rights. It is not there to provide the means to exercise those rights -- particularly when that involves taking money from taxpayers to fund a practice they find morally repugnant. The only way to be free is to "pay as you go" when making choices in life. Seeking to put the cost on others will eventually result in curtailment of those choices.
2 comments:
Jemison -
Saw what I believe to be your first misstatement on the blog! Your quote "Government exists to keep others from impairing your legitimate exercise of your rights" is not a given and should be amended to "Government SHOULD exist to keep others..."
Great blog...it's the one thing I check daily!
Good point. However, given my increasing distrust of government in general, I could fancifully argue that I might not write "Government SHOULD exist..." at all. As I've said before, some days it's hard to restrain the temptation to say the heck with it and become an anarchist. ;)
Thanks for being a regular reader.
Post a Comment