Ramesh Ponnuru has some inconsistencies to address
November 04, 2009 10:39 am ET by Jamison Foser
The Washington Post's Ramesh Ponnuru offers up standard-issue right-wing opposition to "federal funding for abortion":
Americans may be divided about whether and to what extent abortion should be allowed, but for more than three decades there has been a fairly broad consensus that federal money shouldn't pay for it. Pro-lifers regard the Hyde amendment, which bans federal Medicaid funding for most abortions, as the single policy that has done the most to save unborn lives. Some pro-choicers regard it as consistent with their view that the government should stay out of abortion decisions.
The health-care legislation being considered by Congress up-ends this settlement. All of the major bills would offer new subsidies to help people purchase insurance that covers abortion, and those with a public option would authorize a new government-run insurer to cover abortions.
Most Republicans oppose this idea, and so do pro-life Democratic congressmen. They should keep fighting (even though the Democrats will surely be under a lot of pressure to give up). Abortion coverage would almost certainly raise the abortion rate, and would make taxpayers involuntarily complicit in the taking of innocent human life.
The objection to the (even indirect) use of federal funds to pay for abortion on the grounds that "the government should stay out of abortion decisions" is basically dishonest. Does Ponnuru consider Medicaid payments for a trip to the emergency room to fix a broken leg "government involvement in medical decisions"? I'm sure he doesn't. The government refusing to pay for a legal medical procedure is the opposite of the government staying out of the decision.
It's a shame Ponnuru doesn't attempt to reconcile the claim that the government refusing to pay for a legal medical procedure he doesn't like with the standard conservative complaint about "government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor."
It's also a shame that Ponnuru doesn't explain why it's wrong to make taxpayers "involuntarily" pay for abortion, but it's fine to make them involuntarily pay for the death penalty, or wars of choice.
But mostly it's a shame that the Post doesn't ask him to. If it did, it might prompt an actual thoughtful discussion, rather than a rote regurgitation of broad talking points. It might actually help people understand Ponnuru's position. What he posted sure doesn't -- it doesn't include anything we didn't already know about conservative opposition to federal funding for abortion, and didn't address any of the obvious questions about that opposition. It added absolutely nothing to the discourse.
Media Matters: On health care reform, the Fox News noise machine is cranked to 11
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Once the government gets involved in these kinds of decisions, then your freedom is gone. They (ah, the nefarious 'they') will decide who does and does not get to have an abortion. That leads quite quickly to eugenics.
If taxpayers can be made to pay for military spending even if they are pacifist, for death penalty executions even if they disagree philosophically, then what leg do the anti-choice people have to stand on?
And again and again we see why MMFA and the Obama White House are calling out this behavior. It not only doesn't add to the discourse, it is toxic to the debate!
We end up talking about the false talking points, instead of about the true issues that should be raised regarding the funding.
Personally, I think this Post guy is full of it and knows not of what he writes.
There are plenty of elective medical procedures the government doesn't pay for.
Comparing emergency treatment to abortion also adds nothing to the discourse.