Un-Liberaled Woman

Look, I’ll be honest – I’m pro life. But I at least accept that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. While I’m not expecting it to get overturned any day now, I do expect there to be some realistic boundaries when it comes to abortion. First, off abortion is not birth control or a means of population control for “the unfits” (as dictated by the women’s bc “heroine” Margaret Sanger, our recent crypt keeper on the Supreme Court, and Obama’s Science czar). Notice a theme there – all progressive (aka fascist) ideological advocates!

Anybackhandedbigot,  the Obamacare is coming through the pipeline and wouldn’t you know it but the lone presidential candidate that supported partial-birth abortions also thinks it appropriate for the taxpayers to support a 5 o’clock FREE ABORTION Give-away! (via Hotair) And who said that Obama’s stance on abortion wouldn’t matter??? Oh, right my lying-their-ass-off liberal friends who were drunk on kiizzzzzzzzz-oooo-laid!

After all, universal care means universal coverage, and pro-abortion Democrats believe that abortions are an integral part of gynecology. That isn’t limited to just the pro-abortion Democrats, either. Harry Reid, who advertises himself as “pro-life” said in March that he would vote for a health-care bill that provided taxpayer-funded abortions.

Here’s also the video from HotAir’s blog about it. Notice how Peter Orszag skirts away from the issue like a little biyatch…”Uhhhh, I’m not prepared to rule it out”

In case you didn’t know, that’s Beltway slang for “Yes, we are pursing that full force in the most partisan fashion possible.”

I can’t help but relate this to the gun issue. Even if you think that abortion is a constitutional right, does that mean the federal government should fund it? Ummm, N-O.  We also have constitutional rights to bear arms, but I haven’t received my .22 caliber in the mail courtesy of taxpayers. So why should taxpayers fund abortions???

Sure, the law of the land says that both are legal but just because something is deemed a constitutional right, doesn’t also mean that the right is funded as a collective for use by the general public. You have the right to carry out birth control measures, but that doesn’t mean Obama henchmen are patting you on the back with some Trojan men supplied by the taxpayer dime. Nor do I want the remote possibility of a government at the direction of a eugenics-fanatic science czar, influencing anyone on birth control matters: (via the Washington Examiner)

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual’s discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

As Principal Edward Rooney would warn, “He’s just leading you down the primrose path!”  There is so much fine print in these slimy proposals for healthcare. Watch yo’ back, America! As for Obamacare, “I don’t trust this kid any further than I can throw him.”