For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Meg Whitman’s Extreme Pro-Abortion Views
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

A few weeks ago Jon Fleischman of FlashReport.org was fortunate enough to snag an interview with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But the results of one segment of the meeting left him admittedly non-plussed, or as he termed it “unnerved.” Fleischman was aghast to learn of just how extreme Meg Whitman’s views on abortion really are. And after reading Fleischman’s interview myself, I have to wonder if her views makes her completely unelectable amongst California’s pro-lifers?

In the interview, Whitman was completely upfront about the fact that she stands solidly behind public funding of abortion. She was unequivocal about it, really. Whitman explained why she felt that public funding of abortion was the right decision telling Fleischman, “My view is that if we are going to be pro-choice… that it needs to be available to all women, and whether you are rich or poor, you need to be able to access that right. And it’s unfair to women who can not afford an abortion, and that’s why I support public funding.”

It’s one thing to say that a woman should be allowed to chose abortion — this is quite a common determination among liberals — but quite another, indeed, to say that the taxpayers should have to pay for that abortion.

Whitman obviously believes there is a “right” to abortion and that this “right” must be paid for by our tax dollars to be “fair.” This quixotic view of rights is quite an extreme one. After all, if public funds are used to pay for infanticide, then the rights of every taxpayer not to be a party to such actions is necessarily violated. Apparently Whitman doesn’t care that those with staunchly anti-abortion views might get queasy that their taxes are going to fund abortions.

Thankfully, Whitman agrees that late term abortions are wrong, but one has to wonder what arbitrary reasoning she uses to justify claiming that abortion is a “right” on one hand, but must be outlawed three to four months before full term on the other? Since when are rights based on age requirements? Does a person have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only at a certain age? Or are true rights endemic to the human condition as has always been believed? If the later then Whitman hasn’t a logical leg to stand on with her view on rights and if the former then rights are transitory and open to the capriciousness of temporary popular sentiment making them less a right and more an mere opinion.

Whitman’s abortion views seem to have placed her decidedly in the minority, too. A recent Pew Research Poll finds that support for abortion is falling nation-wide.

Polls conducted in 2009 have found fewer Americans expressing support for abortion than in previous years. In Pew Research Center polls in 2007 and 2008, supporters of legal abortion clearly outnumbered opponents; now Americans are evenly divided on the question, and there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain. Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.

Pew found that opinions were even stronger against abortion when the question became one of making abortions far and few between, the pro-abortion view in the minority. The Pew poll also found that the number one reason cited for being anti-abortion was religious beliefs. Whitman’s views put her in direct opposition to those religious views.

Apparently, though, this does not worry her much. She feels that her abortion views should be cast off as the least important of the challenges facing the next governor. She reminded Fleischman that she is running on economic issues, after all. And if you happen to be a single issue voter?

You know what? People need to know where I stand, and what I have said is people will look at the whole package of attributes of my candidacy; my experience, what I bring to the table, my point of view on the social issues, and then people will weigh it. And if there are single issue voters, which there are on almost every issue, if I don’t agree with that person on that issue, whether it’s this issue or gay marriage or how I want to approach creating jobs in California, people just have to look at the whole package and say, “Okay. I don’t agree with her on every issue, but I like the general approach and I like her authenticity and what she says.

Public funding of abortion is an extreme view even for many Democrats. But for Republicans it is an infinitesimally minority position. I cannot help but feel that if Whitman’s abortion views become more widely known, she won’t so easy to blow it all off as a mere side issue.

0
  • robert108

    Mandated taxpayer funding for abortions on demand is an economic issue, among other things.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    The funny thing is, she's not as extreme in her support of baby murder as President Obama.

  • BIG

    I really do think there is a simple way to handle these issues like taxpayer funded abortion and even the mandate for universal health coverage and our founding fathers pointed the way. If you think abortion and universal health coverage are rights, then it belongs in our constitution. I've read the constitution and all the amendments many times and I have not found the lines where these things are stated rights. I know I have the right to free speech because it is in there for all to see.

    Let's pass an amendment to the constitution outlining these rights. And once it has been ratified, then we will know that we have a right to taxpayer funded abortion and healthcare. There will be no question about it since it will then be the law of the land.

    For those furious at me for having this position, we can discuss what it takes to pass an amendment. It requires the will of the people to pass an amendment and I don't believe there are enough out there to get these ratified. And the years it takes to get one passed will put off Obamacare for many years. Does anyone else remember ERA or am I dating myself?

  • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

    I remember the ERA. It didn't work, thankfully. But, you are right. If it is ti be a "right" it should be in the Constitution and not done by Congressional fiat.

  • BIG

    ERA was never ratified. How could it work? I also believe that making healthcare a right will not be ratified. I can see this working on a great many issues. Let's make it a law that if you enter the United States, you are automatically a citizen. If they can get it ratified, then it will become the law. Instead, we have morons in Washington trying to impose their will on the people. But if I had my way, the first amendment I would try to get through is term limits for Congress. Two terms for Senators and four terms for Reps. This means that no person can sit on their butts in Washington for more than 20 years.

  • Pingback: What Do You Mean, Liberals Don’t Have Conservatives’ Best Interests in Mind? | NewsReal Blog

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info