Scott Brown has responded with an ad featuring his wife insisting that he is pro-choice and is being unfairly painted.
And she has a point- Scott Brown has a history that is consistently pro-choice, unlike many Republican politicians around the country.
But here's the problem: being pro-choice in his heart does the country no good. The battle for a woman's right to choose what to do with her womb is being waged in the courts most of all, and the makeup of the Supreme Court is the single most important way to protect this right. Scott Brown voted against Elena Kagan's nomination, and would presumably vote in favor of a pro-life justice proposed by a President Romney.
The fact is, it doesn't mean anything to be pro-choice if you won't use your vote to do anything about it.
Despite consistent public opposition to using federal funds for abortion, Democrats push it through to cater to the woman's vote.
ReplyDeleteLegal Abortion is the law. Forcing us to pay for your Abortion is not.Forcing people to pay taxes so women can feel free to get pregnant with no financial penalty is counterproductive. If they get pregnant and want an Abortion, they can get it and they or their boyfriend should be the one forced to pay for their choices, not us.
Scott Brown supports Supreme Court justices who would ban abortion for everyone- there's no doubt about that.
ReplyDeleteThere's not "consistent public opposition" to federal funds for abortion- there's just pro-life zealots who oppose that funding while the rest of us are fine with it.
Think about it this way: paying for Medicaid abortions is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the pre-natal care, delivery, and first few years of a child's life. If your argument is just a financial one, then it's an easy call to fund it. And the moral case is even stronger.