New Polling Shows the Left's Climate Change Hysteria Losing Steam
America's Largest Muslim Advocacy Group Is Very Upset Their Pro-Hamas Encampment Is Gone
Time to Go: Police Begin Dismantling Pro-Hamas Camp at George Washington University
It's Not Columbia University, but It Doesn't Negate the Error These Pro-Hamas Clowns...
Joe Biden Just Lost Another Battle With His Teleprompter
Biden's Use of TikTok Cited to Support Company's Lawsuit Against the Government
Gov. Abbott Has a Message for Texas Schools Following Biden's Title IX Rewrite
The 2024 Pulitzer Prizes Show the Focus Is Less on Journalism and More...
Sickening: 'Newcomer' Illegal Immigrant Arrested in Florida for Heinous Crime
The IRA Is Punishing Small Businesses and Putting Cancer Patients at Risk
House Dems Are Asking for Executive Action on the Border, but KJP of...
Boeing Cargo Plane Forced to Make Emergency Landing After Gear Fails
Vulnerable Dem Incumbent Sherrod Brown: Biden's Politics 'Not Much Different From Mine'
Here’s Why One Pharmaceutical Company Will Withdraw Its COVID-19 Vaccine
Emory's Jewish Problem
Tipsheet

Abortion & ObamaCare

The invaluable James Taranto points out the chilling implications of the arguments being made by pro-choice Democrats about the abortion provisions of ObamaCare.  He notes the reporting from NRO's Bob Costa about how some Democrats are praising the efficacy of abortion as a "cost-cutting measure." 
Advertisement


Taranto explains that obviously, nations need new generations of citizens -- well, productive citizens, that is (who else is going to pay your social security someday?!).  On the other hand, some little ones are born with conditions that are very expensive and/or incurable and/or difficult to treat (very "inefficient" to save and care for those babies in hard cash terms, don't you know!)

Taranto then proceeds to the ugly but ineluctable conclusion about what the Democrats' argument really means: 

In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.

Advertisement
He's right -- as is his argument about how such a cost-benefit analysis, if made by government-health-care-bureaucrats, could impact the reproductive rights of women who want to carry "imperfect" babies to term.

Perhaps this would be a good time for all the pro-choicers in the Democrat Party -- who have long claimed to support "reproductive rights" -- to clarify if those rights only matter so long as they're being exercised for the purposes of aborting the unborn, rather than saving them.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement