Taxpayer funded abortions?
I don't want to pay for something I hate
Terrible. Defund the Government abortion clinics and stop forcing these sick beliefs on everyone.
Stop forcing your sick beliefs on everyone.
You can't be "pro-choice" while forcing your beliefs on everyone.
You can't be pro-life while not supporting healthcare as a human right.
Lol. Communism is pro-life, huh? You're not pro-choice because you want to force your beliefs on everyone.
I love it when you confuse common sense with communism.
lol. You think Communism is common sense?
Universal access to healthcare is a common sense idea that you described as "communism."
Lol. Of course you love Communism.
ITT a bunch of people who think abortions are more expensive than 18+ years of welfare
I should not have to pay for someone else's abortion.
I'm against abortion and I'm against taxpayer funded.
Cheaper than taxpayer funded kids
Wish your mom had that attitude.
Sure, because moral responsibility shouldn't be one of the options.
way cheaper than welfare, food stamps, etc...
All of which are more expensive than condoms.
"Because they were stupid an didn't buy condoms, I won't let them get an abortion they can't afford but I will let them have a child they can't afford and will pay them in welfare for the next 18+ years"
Cons just don't get it.
So liberals see abortion as cost control? Since when are you worried about spending? You can just take it from the rich, remember.
Disapprove of any and all murders of the unborn, no matter who's paying.
I'm not paying for something that violates my religious rights... If rather pay more for a child to live
My tax dollars are used for many things I feel deeply violate my personal beliefs.
Should I be exempted from paying those taxes, or have my tax money sheltered from paying for those programs?
War on Drugs, NSA, Gitmo, drone strikes, to name a few off the top of my head.
And really the examples do not matter. You think your tax money should not go towards something you believe is immoral.
Is that a precedent you'd like to defend?
also, someone else having an abortion doesn't violate your religious rights any more than me eating bacon violated the religious rights of someone who is Jewish.
All human life is sacred. Allowing it is just as bad as doing it
you may oppose this, but this does not violate your religious rights. you do see that, right?
It does though... I am being forced to pay the Hitman for a murder I don't want.
seriously? profiting from lending money is also forbidden. no one seems to be opposed to banks on religious grounds, though.
paying the hitman for murder. wow.
Goalie, is the precedent of allowing citizens to direct which programs their tax dollars can and cannot be used on one you'd like to extend to everyone?
Yes, I support it, in cases where the pregnant woman is unable to get an abortion without significant financial difficulty.
Or she can just have the kid and set them up for adoption
let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about a strictly elective abortion.
would you then support using public funds to cover the expenses of pregnancy, birth, and adoption?
Yes... I am against abortion... I'd rather pay for life than death
No, they can pay for it themself
... Or just not have one
That's the best option, but we know they don't care.
1. Does banning tax payer funded abortions create excessive entanglement with religious affairs?
2. Does banning tax payer funded abortions advance or inhibit religious practice?
3. Does banning tax payer funded abortion have a secular purpose?
1. Yes, the bans do cause excessive entanglement. There are no valid secular reasons for the ban.
2. Yes, the ban advances a specific religious view.
3. No, there is no valid secular purpose for the ban. In fact, the ban works against
...a safe, healthy community.
Besides average Americans don't think the government should pay for them. And the law says the same. So, don't like the law, change it. Until then, it is illegal.
Plus, there are secular atheists who think of abortion as murdering a child.
There are secular atheists who think ghosts are real, vaccines are bad, and that trickle-down economics is a positive thing.
Look at what I stated: No valid secular reasons.
I agree. Currently it's the law, but as soon as possible I think it
...should be challenged.
The valid secular reasons are that a majority of the people don't want it right now. That may change in the future.
You apparently don't understand what a valid secular reason is.
The majority supporting something is not a valid secular reason.
I will approve spending tax money for abortions when they start spending tax money for my ammunition.
join the military and they will.
I'm 63. Think they will take me?
it does seem a bit unlikely.
Doing a single medical procedure is cheaper than forcing that woman to give birth and then having the taxpayers support the child until it turns 18
So by not paying for it themselves, that is the exact same as society making them give birth. Is that your argument?
No, by forcing them to give birth I meant making abortions illegal.
This question doesn't ask about that, only public funding.
If an individual decides they want an abortion because they can not financially provide for the child but are unable to pay for it, by denying them funds you are causing the gov't to spend more than if you did. That's pretty simple economics.
Are we publicly funding other medical procedures? If so, then fund it like all the others and leave it up to the individual.
I'm against publicly funded ...... For personal things.
I'm personally in favor of public funding for all medical procedures, but I recognize that this is enough of an uncertain gray area that I'm okay with citizens deciding they don't want to fund it.
I respect that. I can see that you're being even handed and I really applaud you for it. Well done Kermie.
Another abortion poll? Boring. Zzz zzz zzz
I should have made this poll at night then. Nevertheless, you probably need a nap.
Poli. Maybe you should run all your poll questions by truck first to see if it meets his approval before posting. Lol.
I think I should.
Paying for abortions> paying for welfare for 18 years
If only this were a financial issue then you'd have it nailed. I'd want to kill every person on welfare if it would save me money by not having to feed them, if there were no moral implications in doing so.
Think how much money offing the terminally ill and unproductive could save us.
The abortion clinics should give out stickers like the I voted stickers, but they should say "I aborted." Maybe with a picture of Uncle Sam winking too.
Wonder how many women he knocked up in his day.
Hardly matters whether we do or don't. We're paying for them now through the ACA.
No, we aren't.
Sure are. Premiums were supposed to be segregated solo that taxpayer subsidies would not be used to pay for abortions, but that requirement in the law is being ignored.
Do you understand that just saying these things doesn't make them true?
I'm trying to read the actual report, but the link in the article only links to the first page of the report, not the sections about these violations.
The summary is pretty clear. Specific requirements were put in the law to prevent taxpayer money being used for abortions and that part of the law is being ignored. It was a lie to protect democrat lawmakers in red states
i don't approve of any abortion.
It should be illegal anyway.
Ding ding ding!
It represents a depraved selfishness anyway. It's very low.
Don't you just hate it when your finger hits the wrong comment to like?
Because women will stop having abortions if we ban them
Murder laws have never stopped murder, but they do make us civilized and it relieves us of the moral burden that comes by not outlawing them.
There is very little I approve of in the way government spends my money.
Evil + Stealing = Taxpayer Funded Abortions
Abortions are not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution, so I do not think tax dollars should fund them.
But our Constitution does ban laws written for explicitly religious purposes. There are no valid secular arguments for this ban.
Yes there is. I just said it. It's not a ban on abortions, it's a ban on tax funded abortions. You have no right to an abortion, therefore no base to fund it with taxes.
I would rather pay a small amount for an abortion than spend years paying for an unwanted child in 'the system.' And I would hate for the kid to grow up knowing s/he was unwanted. A better idea would be better education and access to birth control.
That's a depressing attitude. You assume that kea can't overcome poverty.
And that they can't walk to a local clinic for free birth control, but can get to abortion clinic.
Kids* I do wish I could type.
Political, there's a big difference between assuming a kid can't overcome poverty, and looking at a child's statistical likelihood of overcoming poverty. Even if we tripled the rate at which that happens, more than half would still be tax burdens.
Every child deserve a chance to succeed.
Children aren't a statistic.
Yes...I finally thought of what I needed to say on my second attempt. :)
And fetuses aren't children.
And it's particularly galling of you to say children deserve a chance to succeed when your personal political philosophy does absolutely nothing to help them succeed the moment they're out of the womb.
Really? I'm all for school choice unlike your political ideology.
Late, it's more difficult for minors to get birth control than you might think. We have a county health clinic right next door to one of our high schools. That clinic is not allowed to even give out free condoms because it would promote sex!
Sojo, I live in Memphis where we have a high school with a record number of pregnancies. We have free BC everywhere. I don't think age is an issue, but I will look it up. Most of the billboards and bus signs have teenage girls on the ads.
Late: I approve! Unfortunately my area still thinks abstinence only education is the way to prevent pregnancy in teens. "If you don't give them condoms then they won't have sex." Ugh. . .
Only if it includes a hysterectomy.
Forced funding is not choice. But then, we knew it was never about choice.
So much for liberals being pro-choice....
I'm pro-choice and answered "disapprove" here. So yes, for me, it's about choice.
Bad and good!
Forced anything is wrong. ANYTHING. RELIGION TOO.
I am pro-life, so I definitely don't support my tax dollars going towards paying for abortions.
If you're pro life, why do you support your tax money going to give war?
I'm not exactly a war-monger, Abo, but there is a major difference. Soldiers choose to fight in war, and yes, I oppose a draft because it should be a choice.
How about I fund the murder of "inconveniences" (baby at the wrong time), when they start funding me to murder people who are "inconveniences" in my life...