Feinstein: “Morally correct” to force taxpayers to fund abortions

posted at 3:35 pm on December 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I guess the Hyde Amendment that Congress has passed every single year for decades must have been immoral, in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s view. CNS News asks Feinstein about the morality of imposing the costs of abortions on people who object to them, and Feinstein replies with a couple of non-sequiturs you’ll be hearing over the remaining debate on ObamaCare:

As the Senate was debating the Nelson amendment Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: “Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.”

CNSNews.com asked: “So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein responded: “Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.”

There are a couple of problems with Feinstein’s argument, not the least of which is that the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak Amendment, and the Nelson-Casey Amendment all made exceptions for rape, incest, and a threat to the mother’s life. Furthermore, the other potential “tragic circumstances” all have to do with choices the mother made, whether married or unmarried. And none of these pieces of legislation have to do with outlawing abortion altogether, but instead put the responsibility for funding said abortions on the person who wants one.

Feinstein does have one thing correct; tax dollars go to a lot of things that taxpayers may find objectionable, whether that’s the war in Afghanistan to studies on the effect of alcohol on young adults. However, this is also a non-sequitur in that people may find some public policy objectionable, but that’s not the same thing as subsidizing the personal choices of individuals. Besides, Feinstein’s statement is really an argument for more limited government, however, not an argument that supports promiscuous spending by elected officials.

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

This argument has being going on 40 years now. Can the dems or will the dems solve the problems?. The answer is hell no.

Wheres the post on why the dems in both houses voted to stop funding for ACORN a few weeks ago and last night they voted to resume funding. I think this is newsworthy and needs a lot more light on the Subject.

bluegrass on December 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Life is sacred, and should be treated as such, for without it nothing else matters
mikeymike on December 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM

True. I think that is what’s missing in the conversation because when people believe this whole-heartedly they strive to better their life and their child’s.

Also, I think dignity is the other thing missing. At our house, welfare was a shame on you.

meMC on December 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM

San Francisco values.

The Ugly American on December 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Here is an analogy that might work:
Woman gets into a car accident on the way to a meeting with a male sports celebrity and, unfortunately, her nose is broken in such a way that plastic surgery is required to have her recover and substantially like she looked just before the accident. Coverage by whatever healthcare insurance she has seems reasonable.

Same woman decides she wants to look different from what she looks like so that she might look more attractive to the male sports celebrity she plans to meet in a few months. So, she gets plastic surgery to change her nose. Coverage by whatever healthcare insurance she has seems unreasonable.

Ira on December 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM

gekkobear on December 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM

made pretty much the same point.

Ira on December 9, 2009 at 5:25 PM

People can find war objectionable all they want and say they shouldn’t pay taxes for it however the constitution makes that one of the jobs of the government, to wage war. That’s something we know we pay taxes for. The government isn’t charged with providing abortions that many find morally reprehensible as well as a violation of their religion. Should it be instituted I just don’t plan on paying my taxes under religious grounds. Let them come for me it is a tyrannical ruling over the people anyway I’d rather fight it standing than take it lying down.

theguardianii on December 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Feinstein wouldn’t know morality if it walked up to her at the Folsom St. festival and smacked her upside the head with a 3′ rubber dildo (shaped in the image of the Virgin Mary).

rayra on December 9, 2009 at 5:51 PM

So will Feinstein support an amendment that only funds abortion in the case of the mythical ‘rape, incest, endanger health of mother’?

No, of course not. Democrats apparently feel that abortion on demand is a right and that the American public should pay for it.

JimAK on December 9, 2009 at 5:58 PM

The godless must Practice child sacrifice!

daesleeper on December 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM

“However, this is also a non-sequitur in that people may find some public policy objectionable, but that’s not the same thing as subsidizing the personal choices of individuals.”

Ed: do you have any thoughts about the tax deductibility of private health care plans which cover abortion?

Robert Bell on December 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Feinstein wouldn’t recognize “morality” if it jumped up and bit her in the backside.

rplat on December 9, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Good is evil, evil is good. May God have mercy on us.

jazz_piano on December 9, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Thanx for not addressing my argument.

Next….

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Just for you Calibur.

Babies do not choose to die. Mothers choose to kill them. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund this because not all (or even some) taxpayers receive a benefit, only one individual does, the mother.

A person (i.e. was not aborted) who volunteers to serve is bravely protecting your right to be ignorant. However, all taxpayers receive the benefit of protection and accordingly, all taxpayers should pay to fund this protection.

But once again, no one expects you to understand the difference.

rukiddingme on December 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Let’s not forget the saving of the marsh mouse, the poor dears.

larvcom on December 9, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Our “all volunteer” military still seems to expect Uncle Sam to provide a paycheck, working vehicles and equipment. So until we allow Rockefellers to show up with their own gear, the “individual choice” being subsidized is the “choice” to participate in a government outfit.

Tax deductions is the IRS allowing you to keep what you earn; a tax credit is welfare. Tax credits for pro-abortion plans is a government subsidy. Tax deductions are not.

Chris_Balsz on December 9, 2009 at 10:10 PM

She is an evil democrat. There I go again being redundant.

proconstitution on December 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2