BREAKING: A Helicopter Carrying Iran's President Has Crashed
Bill Maher's Latest Closing Segment Was Probably His Fairest
Former Ted Cruz Communications Director and CNN Commentator Alice Stewart Has Died
How Trump Reacted to a Dysfunctional Podium in Minnesota
Washington Is High School With Paychecks
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 218: What the Bible Says About Brokenness
Biden Sure Told Some Shameless Lies About Voting Rights at Morehouse College Commencement
Morehouse College Grads Turn Their Backs on Joe Biden
Tim Scott Reminds Americans of Joe Biden’s Association With a KKK Member
Here’s What Republicans, Democrats Think of the Trump, Biden Debate
Democrat State Caught Housing Illegal Immigrant Children in Hotels With Sex Offender
Catholic Groups Accuse Biden Admin of Withholding Funds From Hospitals Who Don't Perform...
MSNBC Legal Analyst Thinks Blaming Bob Menendez’s Wife Is a Good Tactic
Russia Warns U.S. Is 'Playing With Fire' in Its Continued Support for Ukraine
Good Teaching Requires the Right Ingredients
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