Boxer: If ObamaCare covers Viagra, why shouldn’t it cover abortion?

posted at 5:34 pm on December 8, 2009 by Allahpundit

Because … no one has grave moral reservations about treating sexual dysfunction? Or is pregnancy itself a sexual “dysfunction” in this analogy?

The clip comes via The Hill. Even better than the Viagra comparison is her insinuation of a gender double standard perpetrated by dastardly male senators, never mind the fact that more women now call themselves pro-life than pro-choice. Or at least, that’s what Gallup claims. And you know how those little babies at Gallup can be.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Libs are vile vermin, not only out to kill babies, but hungry for it.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Goldenavatar on December 8, 2009 at 8:44 PM

You have said quite eloquently what I feel on this difficult issue…

Kill the rapist. Save the baby.

TXUS on December 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Hillary wants her hair back.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Oh, she wants her orange pantsuit back, too!

Btw, the right to have sex after your pecker malfunctions is totes the same as killing your baby.

alliebobbitt on December 8, 2009 at 8:54 PM

Hillary wants her hair back.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM

And people in Hell want ice water.

TFB

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 8:57 PM

What a moron! The idiots who voted for her, deserve her. Problem is, we have to stomach her idiocy as well……… Lord, I hope 2010 is a housecleaning and some of these ignorant, sanctimonious, losers are tossed out on their ears. I guess they can all work for Podesta.

ultracon on December 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM

The equivalent of supporting privacy rights for women would be supporting a man’s right not to have to pay child support for a baby that was fathered with a woman who isn’t his wife.

Of course neither side supports this, unfortunately.

Bill C on December 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Ingested pharmaceutical /= infanticide.

daesleeper on December 8, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Somebody, it would seem, failed the quiz in their rhetoric class on categories. One is moved to have deep sympathy for Senatrix Boxer’s old teachers.

Scribbler on December 8, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Hey Boxhead you sick racist f**k !

I wish your parents had the same attitude back in the day about abortion as you do now!

What a c**t!!! The best part of her hit the sheets!

cableguy615 on December 8, 2009 at 9:23 PM

The best part of her hit the sheets!

cableguy615 on December 8, 2009 at 9:23 PM

The Zil upholstery.

daesleeper on December 8, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Living embodiment of a ‘Death Panel’.

Dark-Star on December 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM

MADAME MENGELE,oops,thats,

SENATOR MADAME MENGELE !!

canopfor on December 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Why can we depend on Democrats to “think” with their crotches?

onlineanalyst on December 8, 2009 at 10:11 PM

When someone says “reproductive health care” to me, I think of protocols for insuring that the reproductive organs are free of disease and in good working order. Ma’am here is droning on–and on–about abortion and should have the guts to say so. She sounds like a fracking idiot.

SukieTawdry on December 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Nelsonknows: Your remark about the Secretary of State in California throwing out recall petitions reminded me of the latest Soros stunt to affect elections.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries

How many ways does Soros have to affect our political system anyway? Our upcoming elections will be meaningless if Soros’s plans come to fruition.

I sent this link a couple of days ago to HA tips, but I guess that it didn’t make the cut.

onlineanalyst on December 8, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Barbie Botox…dumber than a box of bricks!!

YankeeinCA on December 8, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Product of rape? A child isn’t a product of rape, he’s a child, created in the image of God. Do you really believe that abortion will do away with a woman’s anguish concerning the rape? No, justice isn’t served in the case of abortion.

jimmy2shoes on December 8, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Um, if a woman is raped, and as a result become pregnant, the child is a product or result of rape. Don’t sugar coat it.

Do I believe that abortion will do away with a woman’s anguish? I don’t know. Every woman is different. My argument is that you shouldn’t be making that choice for her. If she was raped, it is her decision how to handle any resulting pregnancy, and hers alone. I would certainly hope she doesn’t abort it, but that is my opinion, which is utterly irrelevant to what happened to her.

I’m sorry but I see no justice in what you describe. Justice necessarily involves punishment, harsh or otherwise, on the offending party. In my opinion justice should involve some level of atonement as well. Nothing you’ve said indicates those things. So I conclude it is not just. Your opinion indicates that destroying the unborn infant is a just response to rape. While the rape may have caused the pregnancy, the value of the life is not determined by the means of its conception. Your second to last sentence is particularly striking. You seem to be suggesting that children of rapes would/should rather be dead. If nothing else you are definitely indicating your own opinion, subconscious or not, as to the worth of these individuals. If that’s the case then you’ve missed the point of the entire pro-life movement. It’s difficult to follow your reasoning. Individuals advocating abortion in cases of rape or incest are advocating compounding evil with evil. No one is saying it’s easy to accept the consequences of rape. Everyone who is the victim of violent crime suffers. But if I am the victim of a crime I don’t demand blood from anyone except the perpetrator. And mercy may prevent me from even that.

Don’t take this as a personal attack. I just believe further consideration will eventually change your opinion. I say that because I used to believe as you do. But what is right is also immutable.

Cheers!

Goldenavatar on December 8, 2009 at 8:44 PM

No no, I appreciate your well-stated argument. Here’s a question: suppose the woman does the best thing, and immediately goes to the hospital to seek care(an astounding number of rape victims never actually do this). She discovers that she is pregnant. They offer her RU486 another such alternative as part of the process. Do you feel that’s wrong? A couple people I’ve talked to about this are fuzzy on that point, as to whether deciding right away in the moment is justifiable versus later on. Of course, if that is the case, where is the line drawn?

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Individuals advocating abortion in cases of rape or incest are advocating compounding evil with evil.

Additionally, this point sticks out like crazy for me, because that premise traverses numerous other issues, from the death penalty, to military action, etc.

Personally, I am anti-abortion. However, having known a number of women who have had them, and seeing the effect it usually has on them afterwards, I would rather see it legal and shunned by society, rather than outlawed and have women at risk. As the bumper sticker says, keep it safe, legal, and rare.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM

This is a stickler… The baby is still the baby…

Dad might be a rapist…but the baby is still a baby…

What ever the circumstances…it’s not the baby’s fault…

hard decisions….

BigWyo on December 8, 2009 at 11:29 PM

…why shouldn’t it cover abortion?

Once we develop a prenatal test for a predeliction to vile sophistry, Senator Boxer’s existence will indeed be a compelling argument for abortion coverage.

drunyan8315 on December 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM

I know the joke is that every time I rub one out a kitten dies, but kittens aren’t actually killed.

If they were, I could see some similarity in killing baby cats and killing unborn babies; but she need someone to explain that the kittens don’t die.

Also, you don’t go blind, and you don’t grow hair on the palms of your hands.

Finally, I’m not sure how much more unknown truths she can handle… the Easter Bunny isn’t real. I’d better stop now before I overload her brain.

gekkobear on December 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM

3 posts and none showing. Why?

Connie on December 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM

4 posts not showing.

Connie on December 9, 2009 at 1:20 AM

Hey gang: let’s not fall on the trap of arguing with the left about pro life or pro choice or what’s morally right or wrong. Getting people arguing about the apple rather than the tree is how the left gets traction with so many things (like arguing that the problem with the Pelosi/Reed bills is the public option when it is, in fact, the entire bill, entitlements, mandates, exchanges, and such). We should be arguing about the simple fact that providing abortion services is not a legitimate role of government period. And neither is providing health insurance for that matter.

ptcamn on December 9, 2009 at 4:54 AM

There is something seriously wrong with this woman.

Frances on December 9, 2009 at 6:05 AM

I am late getting into this conversation and I just don’t have time at work to read all posts, so I hope I am not repeating a point someone else has already made. It occurs to me that we ought to be grateful for the boldness of this statement because it places right out front the fact that the support for abortion on demand is not about “women’s health” or any other more or less high-minded idea. It’s all about sexual license and now they have said it out loud. The highest form of human expression is not music or philosophy or poetry or literature or architecture but the orgasm. And if men, by G-d, get help with theirs, we deserve to be able to get help dealing with the inconvenient consequences of ours! And the prudes should have to pay for it, for standing in our way!
I am a little cranky this morning.

Jaclyn on December 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

There is something seriously wrong with this woman.

Frances on December 9, 2009 at 6:05 AM

Thanks for that. I like my ‘Well Duh’ moment before 8 am daily.

Blacksmith8 on December 9, 2009 at 8:49 AM

It shouldn’t be covering a placebo the first place.

If you can’t get going with a willing woman and a bottle of whiskey, you should go to bed alone.

Don’t expect me to pay for your lack of ability to win being a healthy man.

Try your own gender next time.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Also late into the conversation; but I felt I had to comment on this and similar ignorant comments. Speaking as one of thousands of men who have survived prostate cancer, the treatments for this condition can have devastating effects on the patient’s erectile and sexual function. While my surgery means that I no longer have to worry about dying from prostate cancer, it has also left me with a medical condition which prevents proper bodily function. Fortunately however, I, and thousands of other survivors, have recourse to medication and other therapies which help to restore said function. It has nothing to do with my ‘manliness’, so please do not insult the thousands of prostate cancer and other disease survivors living with this condition.

That having been said, fairly or unfairly, my insurance company does not pay for my V!@gra prescription and I’m happy to cover the cost myself, but I’m fortunate that I can afford it.

Trafalgar on December 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM

“Oh, she wants her orange pantsuit back, too”

I think they both should be in orange jumpsuits.

margretto on December 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM

The entire issue is one of unleashed feminist hatred of all things male, and is telling in its illogical comparison of murder (however legalized) of the most innocent among us, to a true medically cured malfunctioning health condition (which pregnacy isn’t!)

Don L on December 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM

This is, as usual, ridiculous. As is anything argued by the children in WH.
From all reports this abomination of a healthcare bill is in serious trouble. They can try to include free and easy sex for all but guess what? When the poor ignorant masses figure out that they can not afford free health care, Boxer is going to have a whole lot more on her plate than worrying how to kill more babies.

ORconservative on December 9, 2009 at 9:18 AM

This heinous C U Next Tuesday monster must be defeated, once and for all.

OmahaConservative on December 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM

It makes perfect sense. One is needed by some to do the deed, the other is needed to remove any consequences of said deed.

Electrongod on December 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM

That is so stupid. I mean, these are the people who are concerned about Sarah Palin’s intelligence…finding moral equivalency between and unborn child and a flaccid penis?

caygeon on December 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Because … no one has grave moral reservations about treating sexual dysfunction?

Perfectly stated, AP.
Reason #58 for setting term limits on senators and congressmen.

RMCS_USN on December 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM

4 posts not showing.

Connie on December 9, 2009 at 1:20 AM

Hey, you’re right. Does this have something to do with that e-mail I get telling me to reset my password?

My password is working OK, so I’ve ignored the e-mail.

but you’re right, my post didn’t show up.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I saw this yesterday and the disconnect was so great I couldn’t even think of why.

Apparently, CHOICE to people who think as Boxer does is about sex. Women should have the freedom to have sex with no consequence. Sex, more sex, then sex.

But to me abortion and sex are simply two separate issues. They are barely connected. Especially in an era when contraceptives are easily obtained.

Freedom of sex. That seems to be a common thread through Democratic politics. As though they want it enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Sex is the right the founders forgot.

Sex has become the be all and end all of happiness.

How odd that seems to me.

And what a sad society we have become. Our goals are now so low.

petunia on December 9, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Do I believe that abortion will do away with a woman’s anguish? I don’t know. Every woman is different. My argument is that you shouldn’t be making that choice for her. If she was raped, it is her decision how to handle any resulting pregnancy, and hers alone. I would certainly hope she doesn’t abort it, but that is my opinion, which is utterly irrelevant to what happened to her.

How do you feel about rape victims lynching rape suspects? Is that also her decision?

Chris_Balsz on December 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM

It’s not apples and oranges. It’s more like bananas and sucking out the inside of an orange with a shop vac.

neal7 on December 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM

The logic, or lack thereof, in her assertion that Viagara and abortion are equivalent both medically and morally has literally given me a headache trying to grasp it. Reminds me of one of those old Star Trek episodes when the renegade computer self destructs after being confronted with an illogical assertion. “Does not compute…Does not compute…Does not compute,” followed by smoke and a massive explosion. Too bad imbeciles like Senator Yes Ma’am are not affected in the same manner.

sdd on December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Reminds me of one of those old Star Trek episodes when the renegade computer self destructs after being confronted with an illogical assertion. “Does not compute…Does not compute…Does not compute,”

sdd on December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Are you sure you didn’t mean Lost In Space, you boobitiboob?

Shy Guy on December 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

I’ve had 4 posts disappear on the poll number thread. If I just post on the disappearance the posts it appears. If I write anything else, they go poof.
There has been no other indication that something is wrwong but it is making me not want to tke the time to write.

ORconservative on December 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Because one causes stiffness and the other kills babies. What a dolt!

kens on December 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM

… and likewise, why can’t we abort Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Biden?

ErinF on December 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Comparing ED to abortion is Like comparing breast cancer to a sex change procedure. One is a medical condition the other is a lifestyle choice. I have always known that Boxer was not dealing from a full deck however I may well change my vote from Polosi to boxer for the most ignorant women in politics.

TomLawler on December 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM

How do you feel about rape victims lynching rape suspects? Is that also her decision?

Chris_Balsz on December 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Fallacious comparison. Does the baby have a right to a trial?

Although I would hope she’d make the decision to pull out a concealed pistol and blow the guy away when it happens.

MadisonConservative on December 9, 2009 at 12:43 PM

… and likewise, why can’t we abort Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Biden?

ErinF on December 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Actually we can. All it requires is voting next November and it does not even require an immoral act.

sabbahillel on December 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Are you sure you didn’t mean Lost In Space, you boobitiboob?

Shy Guy on December 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Nope…not what I meant. Boobitiboob?

sdd on December 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Boobitiboob?

sdd on December 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM

A favorite word of Lost in Space’s Dr. Zachary Smith.

Shy Guy on December 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM

No no, I appreciate your well-stated argument. Here’s a question: suppose the woman does the best thing, and immediately goes to the hospital to seek care(an astounding number of rape victims never actually do this). She discovers that she is pregnant. They offer her RU486 another such alternative as part of the process. Do you feel that’s wrong? A couple people I’ve talked to about this are fuzzy on that point, as to whether deciding right away in the moment is justifiable versus later on. Of course, if that is the case, where is the line drawn?

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2009 at 10:54 PM

In response to your question, yes this would still be morally wrong. This drug (and hormonal birth control in general) does not prevent the union of sperm and egg. But instead it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. This is information that the producers of Plan B and other such drugs freely state this on their websites. So it actually causes a de facto abortion. Many abortion advocacy groups deny this fact by trying to re-define the word pregnant. Rather than pregnancy beginning at the moment of conception, which is the overwhelming opinion of most doctors and medical dictionaries, they insist pregnancy begins after the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. Ergo they say that Plan B, the morning after pill, et al do not cause abortion.

Additionally, this point sticks out like crazy for me, because that premise traverses numerous other issues, from the death penalty, to military action, etc.

By the way, I fully understand your other issues with the death penalty and war. They are difficult moral questions. However they are quite different from abortion, even abortion in cases of rape or incest. Because the death penalty is punishment for a crime it therefore can potentially be just. Similarly there is such a thing as a just war. So they death penalty and war may not necessarily compound evil with evil. Questions about the proper administration of the death penalty or going to war, are not questions about the legitimacy of the acts but about their proper execution.

For full disclosure, I unapologetically confess that my sentiments are fully informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church. So even if Plan B did not cause de facto abortions I would still condemn its use for other reasons.

Cheers!

Goldenavatar on December 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM

When someone says “reproductive health care” to me, I think of protocols for insuring that the reproductive organs are free of disease and in good working order.

SukieTawdry on December 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Libs love to try and control the debate by misusing language. Abortion has nothing to do with reproductive health care, or any other type of health care. In almost all cases, abortion is an elective procedure that is not medically necessary. It’s a lifestyle choice, the purpose of which is to allow the woman to terminate pregnancy (an easily preventable condition), and thus avoid dealing with the consequences of unprotected sex.

But it’s difficult to argue that taxpayers should be forced to finance medically unnecessary elective surgical procedures so that more people can engage in irresponsible sex without worrying about the consequences. Sounds so much more noble to couch it in terms of “women’s privacy rights” or “women’s reproductive health care” — even though it has nothing to do with either.

AZCoyote on December 9, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I’ve got a question for Babs; excuse me, that should be Senator Babs;
Doesn’t this right to privacy, which the liberals have applied, to the right to kill babies also extend to our right to bear arms? Just want to know in preparation to the next wave of edicts forthcoming.

sannhet on December 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Hey congrats to some of our commenters!!!! You made the cut over at LGF for another episode of “Hot Air Comments of the Day

You know you all are a bunch of racists and sexists for pointing out liberal hypocrisy and opposing abortion, er, I mean, murder.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM

The godless always practice child sacrifice.

daesleeper on December 9, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Getting a woody, killing a child.

Moral equivalency to a liberal.

If only she were aborted…

enoughalready on December 9, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM

LGF, where the HA comments he feels should be deleted and not discussed are posted and discussed. I find that amusing.

Ronnie on December 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM

In response to your question, yes this would still be morally wrong. This drug (and hormonal birth control in general) does not prevent the union of sperm and egg. But instead it prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. This is information that the producers of Plan B and other such drugs freely state this on their websites.

This is where the anti-abortion people simply leave me blinking.

Way, way too religious here and truly an imposition of your morality viewpoint on others.

I can’t support that. It’s not OK.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 9:09 PM

People who voted for Boxer belong in Hell. it is too good for them.

proconstitution on December 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM

All medical privacy will be compromised with complete govt control.

painfulTruthDisciple on December 10, 2009 at 6:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3