Defund! Defund! Defund!

A Massachusetts antiabortion group has unveiled a bill that would let individual taxpayers opt out of paying for publicly funded abortions. Under the measure, a taxpayer could choose to have whatever portion of their state taxes pays for abortion coverage directed instead to the Baby Safe Haven Law. That law allows parents to leave unwanted newborns at fire stations and other designated locations.
I LOVE this idea.  Puts those Planned Parenthood ghouls in the position of saying,  “We don’t want desperate mothers to have a way to unburden themselves of a baby they don’t want or can’t care for.  Women should not have the choice to go to a safe location — they should be forced to do what their government and big corporations want them to do.”
Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said the bill, one of several filed by the group for the new legislative session, would give residents who oppose abortion a way of exercising their conscience. The head of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Andrea Miller, said she had not seen the bill but argued that tax dollars routinely go toward many things that a given taxpayer might not agree with. (AP)
Let me translate for you:  “But that’s ourrrrrrrrrr money!  It’s not fai-i-i-i-ir that someone was clever and enterprising enough to push for laws that a majority of citizens want!  We are, and always have been, opposed to choice for Americans!”
This is the way to do it.  Prayer, huge, peaceful protest, the brilliant Lila Rose with her exposés, and defund, defund, defund.  Some abortionists are just plain evil, and some, I’m sure, sincerely believe they are helping women.  But most of them are in it for the money, pure and simple — and they are making plenty of it.  Time to cut them off.
Oh, and I love how the Globe and other media think it’s some kind of stinging insult to say “antiabortion” instead of “prolife.”    Call me “antiabortion” all day long, folks.  Abortion is the kind of thing that the prefix “anti” was invented for.
(cross-posted on Inside Catholic)


  1. I love this! This gives me the ability to want better national healthcare coverage without feeling guilty that I could unintentionally be funding abortion. Crazy to think that there could be alternate choices available for prolifers. Love it.

  2. Here’s the NYC chapter of NOW trying to squirm out of supporting a bill allowing women with difficult pregnancies to use handicap parking spaces:

    They “liked the idea but worried about possible discrimination by employers and others who may be upset over the special privileges.”

    I guess they worry about discriminatory special privileges for people on crutches too. What a sensitive conscience they have. They probably stay up nights with all these worries.

    • I’m confused– does something in NY law specifically **prevent** individual women in difficult pregnancies from getting a temporary placard? I live in California, and had the toughest pregnancy of my life last year. I was in physical therapy every week just so I could keep hobbling around. Nobody argued when I asked about a handicapped placard. The OB wrote up the recommendation, I hobbled off to the DMV, and got my placard, which was written to last until six weeks after my due date. I was soooo thankful for that placard.

  3. What a stellar idea! I hate the fact that part of my tax dollars funds abortion, and would LOVE LOVE LOVE being able to “opt out” like this. What do you suppose it would take to get this option available in other states?

  4. I LOVE THIS IDEA! The fact that it even exists shows what a large public outcry there is AGAINST having taxpayer dollars used for abortion.

  5. I love this idea. But it also makes me wonder about the ramifications of allowing citizens to make more choices about where their specific tax dollars go to. Instead of just trusting our representatives, would we be able to go down the list and allocate our dollars. Would homeschoolers such as myself say that I don’t want my tax dollars to go to public schools? Or that us “highlanders” here in the mountains don’t want to fund projects on the coast? This could be an incredible revolution – or a big mess.

    And no, my point is not that I want my dollars to fund abortions — I’m just also curious about the precedent this might set. And it might be a good thing.

  6. You know, as pessimistic I am about this proposed piee of legislature ever going anywhere, I am buoyed that it’s taking place in Massachusetts, which I’d mostly written off as a Land of Very Bad Things.

    Somewhere down in the Bible Belt I feel like this would have a real shot at passing. Before it got hauled into the Supreme Court. But what a hell of a ride.

  7. “but argued that tax dollars routinely go toward many things that a given taxpayer might not agree with. (AP)”

    So maybe there is something very very wrong with our tax system.

    The demise of Planned Parenthood would make me feel that something worthwhile had been accomplished in my lifetime. They are the most insidious organization in the world with tentacles in almost every charity, even the Ronald McDonald House. I hate them so much and their foul, eugenist hag of a founder, Margaret Sanger. Yeah, I said hate.

  8. Karyn’s concern is justified.

    The idea, while catchy, is lousy public policy. Think “Department of Defense” if you like selective taxpaying…

    The best way to stop tax-funding of PP? Move to a State which does not do it.

    • I kind of like the idea of selective tax paying. That would probably be the best and easiest way to get rid of programs that aren’t needed or wanted. I don’t think the DoD will suffer. But of course it will not happen.

    • I’m afraid I agree. When I worked for a (pro-life) Congressman I used the same argument against the so-called “Peace Tax,” which would allow peaceniks to designate their tax dollars go to a “Peace Fund” rather than to national defense programs.

      That said, DEFUND! The government’s too dang broke to pay to abort the next generation of taxpayers.

    • At very least, it could make people aware that their taxes do fund abortions — many people don’t know. (If you want to get people riled up, tell them that someone is spending their money!)

      And, as I mentioned, it puts those who oppose it on tricky ground. It’s like when they name a bill the “Halt Obama’s Evil Plan to Behead Kittens Act” or whatever. Nobody really expects it to pass, but you get to make a point.

    • dad29.

      I like Massachusetts. I don’t want to move. If I moved, wouldn’t we be running away from the problem. I move out, PP gets free reign, against those who can’t speak against them?

      The state though, can’t figure why it will lose another congressional seat in 2012 due to population decline.

      Go figure.

    • Except for that whole “provide for the common defense” in the Preamble. Just checked, and there’s no “provide for people to kill their babies”.

      The liberals might be disturbed that so many of us 40-somethings learned a little something about the governments in the 70’s while watching vapid cartoons on Saturdays. Schoolhouse Rock, anyone?

      • Exactly Robin.

        There are legitimate Constitutionally mandated roles for the government. Abortions are not one of them.

        There is a much larger question that should be asked like, “what should the government pay for?” Should it pay for Hawaiian kids to research their polynesian heritage? Should it pay for laptops in a city whose citizens are fleeing? Should it pay for a community center for teenagers? I think the things that the government pays for overall has to be rethought. Should the government pay for education? What about defense missiles for Israel? Egypt? South Korea?

  9. I would be interested how this plays out. The bill won’t pass, because the of make up of our legislature. What the bill does though it make us think about what we really think about abortion. I’m glad it is getting press.

    Right now state funds pay for abortion, most people don’t know it or really give it much thought. If anything I think people don’t mind state funded abortion, because it’s one less child that may need state aid. But if people had to ‘elect’ to give money state funds to abortions, by actually checking off a box, how many would?

    It’s about getting the conversation going about what we think about abortion, that we lie to ourselves with ‘I don’t believe in it personally, but I believe in choice’ BS.

  10. I am an “antiabortionist” (pro-life is so much easier to spell) from Massachusetts. We are the “great” state of abortion, freedom, gay marriage etc. I hope I get a chance to refuse to fund abortion!!!!!!!!!

  11. Another MA resident here, specifically Cambridge which is the mother-den of all things secular humanist. At least as a Harvard student, one can opt out of paying for student health services abortion coverage, but like so many people have already said, it’s hard to see the government (at any level) allowing this with regard to taxes. *sigh* I also have to say that I haven’t heard many people talking about the proposed bill here, but now I’ll just have to rally my ‘antiabortion’ friends to help out with that task.

    Also, this is a GREAT opportunity for church-goers to be given a right good talking-to about how “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” is not a cry to simply sit back and let Caesar take whatever Caesar wants.

  12. Um. So should I be allowed to not pay for wars I don’t approve of? If I don’t believe in the prison system, should I be allowed to skip paying for that? Or how about roads? I walk everywhere, do I have to pay for those? This absurd notion of being able to opt out of taxes because you may not support where a portion of them are spent, makes collecting taxes futile.

    Hands down the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a long time. If you really want to fight for pro-life causes, come up with something intelligent that might work rather than something dramatic that won’t.

    • I bet you could drive a car powered by your sense of self esteem. Why not power your way to a smarter end of the Internet.

  13. “Abortion is the kind of thing that the prefix “anti” was invented for.”


    @ Ima: exactly, as I’ve pointed out to friends, we take away other choices all the time without thinking anything of it. We sure didn’t have a problem removing Ted Bundy’s choices, did we?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s