Taxpayer-Funding of Abortions Now the New Roe v Wade of the Abortion Debate

Taxpayer funding of abortions is quickly become the new Roe v. Wade or touchstone of the abortion debate.

More Information:

An excellent editorial in LifeNews discusses this dramatic shift in the debate over healthcare reform:

The debate over requiring public funds to pay for abortions is so fundamental that it is part of a shift that could see it as the major battleground between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates.

In pro-abortion legal circles, abortion advocates have shifted their arguments for abortion from the privacy considerations that played out in Roe. v. Wade and its contraception-based predecessors.

Now, abortion advocates see the so-called right to abortion not as a matter of privacy but as a fundamental women’s right, and human right.

Their logic follows that, if abortion is a human right, then it should be a right that all women enjoy regardless of their economic situation.

As such, forcing taxpayers to fund the abortions of poor women through government funding is merely a means of making that right available to all women, including those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

That debate is playing out in the health care discussion as pro-abortion forces do everything in their power to make sure abortion funding and coverage are included. And it is a controversy that could extend beyond the health care legislation in Congress and to the Supreme Court.

Full story at

This entry was posted in Bioethics, Medical Economics, Woman's Health and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Taxpayer-Funding of Abortions Now the New Roe v Wade of the Abortion Debate

  1. Rob Hanson, M.D. says:

    The procedure of abortion is itself becoming less of the issue as the pro-life movement is no longer leading the direction of this battle. Framing the argument into rights for the poor or the right not to be circumvented by a provider with conscience serves to solidify the belief that the procedure is acceptable and reasonable.

Comments are closed.