Friday, June 07, 2019

House Training


I don’t know if it is still acceptable ... but the way that one used to cure a dog from befouling one’s house was to rub its nose in its “business.” This seems to be the Democrat’s approach to paying for abortions. There is something called the Hyde amendment that forbids public money being used to fund abortions ... the theory being that there is a substantial proportion of US citizenry who resent their tax dollars being used for infanticide.

Now, this is the apparently just symbolism, not the reality. Planned Parenthood, the primary supplier of abortions in America, gets substantial government funds to supply women’s healthcare, like mammograms (which they don’t perform). So, in fact, taxpayers’ money is being used for abortions in another instance of government legerdemain ... a bit of Democrats’ rubbing the religious right’s nose in this mess.

Enter stage left, Joe Biden who has now had to reverse his position supporting the Hyde amendment. In other words, Biden now favors forcing all taxpayers to pay for abortions despite what their moral objections may be. The radical progressives have won another major skirmish ... no matter what the cost during the next election. Planned Parenthood should be able to continue performing their grisly trade on the public dime.

One last thought ... all the gnashing of teeth over the Hyde amendment support or non-support neglects one key point: Planned Parenthood is a charitable organization. If, for some strange reason, the Hyde amendment was actually enforced ... there would be plenty of room for liberal billionaires (like Bloomberg) and millionaires (like Bernie) to step up and donate to it to perform its dark medical arts. But this would be too obvious ... and it doesn’t involve any nose rubbing.

2 comments:

DEN said...

We force taxpayers to pay for many things that they morally object to: War, Separating migrant kids from mothers, funding presidential vacations and golf outings, United Nations dues, scientific testing using animals, etc.
Your argument is thin and twisty like a pretzel. Needs more salt.

George W. Potts said...

Sure ... add PBS, Clinton Library and Massage Parlor, etc. The issue is strength of objection. Forcing Muslims to eat pork would be rubbing their noses in it.